Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RYDE CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Gordon Campbell: presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Jury Trials (Acquittals)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, with a view to legislation, he will set up an inquiry into the numbers of acquittals in jury trials.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): My right hon. Friend has no plans for a formal inquiry, but the significance of the statistics for acquittals in contested trials is one of the many subjects in the field of criminal law which are being considered for future research.

Mr. McCrindle: I am pleased to note the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend. He in turn will have noted the remarks of Sir Robert Mark, who has
 

revealed that in London juries have acquitted 41 per cent. of all defendants in recent months and has called for impartial and extensive research into the jury system. To disprove the suggestion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question, preferably a brief one.

Mr. McCrindle: To disprove the suggestion that large numbers of guilty men are getting away with it, does not my hon. and learned Friend feel that urgent research is required?

Mr. Carlisle: The 41 per cent. is the figure of acquittals in contested cases. If one includes all the cases of indictable offences that go for trial, the overall figure of acquittals is 7·5 per cent.

Mr. Stonehouse: If an inquiry is held, in the light of recent publicity will consideration be given to the importance of ensuring that in sex trials there are women members of the jury?

Mr. Carlisle: Under the Criminal Justice Act 1972, as from March next year juries will be taken from the electoral roll. That will rectify the present imbalance between men and women on juries.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May it not be that the 41 per cent. quoted by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) were innocent of the crime with which they were charged? Should there not be research into the way in which juries reach their decision, in view of the analysis by the Oxford Group and the interesting article by Dudley Stamp in Modern Law Review?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that 41 per cent. is a high figure, whether it refers to innocent people who have been wrongly charged or to people who have been wrongly acquitted. I agree that research into the jury system is a matter that might be considered, although one has to be careful not to attempt to interfere with the privacy of the jury room.

Toilet Preparations (Hazardous Substances)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now concluded his review of the toiletry
 


industry with regard to hexachlorophane; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): The use of hexachlorophane in non-medicinal toilet preparations and cosmetics is under consideration in the European Economic Community. Meanwhile, the associations representing manufacturers in this country have agreed to comply with the recommendation of the Department of Health and Social Security's Sub-Committee on Toxicity that hexachlorophane should not be used at all in baby products and should be subject to an upper limit of 01 per cent. in other cases.

Mr. Pavitt: I welcome this belated response after 13 months, but will the hon. Gentleman examine the whole range of chemicals added to articles in household use that come under the jurisdiction of his Department to make sure that they are covered by a foolproof system similar to that which is established in the Department of Health and Social Security?

Mr. Lane: I shall certainly look again at this. There is a later Question on the Order Paper which bears on it. I can reassure parents straight away on the immediate point by saying that our medical advice is that there is no significant risk to health from products containing hexachlorophane at present on sale in this country.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I welcome the Minister's reply, but is the Poisons Committee considering the chemicals mentioned in Question No. 22? Inevitably, with the restriction on the use of hexachlorophane there will be a search for alternatives, some of which may be equally dangerous.

Mr. Lane: In case we do not reach Question 22, I assure the hon. Lady that we shall be ready to take further action if we think, on medical advice, that these alternatives present a risk to health.

Police Recruitment

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to increase the recruitment of coloured policemen, policewomen and special constables into the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the recruitment of coloured policemen into the Metropolitan Police and other forces.

Mr. Carlisle: With my right hon. Friend's active encouragement, chief officers of police, who are responsible for recruitment to their forces, adopt the publicity and other measures best suited to their areas. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his recruitment staff pay special attention to the need to encourage members of coloured communities to join the Metropolitan Police as regular or special constables. He has made it known through newspapers which circulate among coloured communities that appropriately qualified members of these communities would be welcomed into the force and he has sought to convey the same message through the work of his community liaison officers, who are in day-to-day touch with community leaders.

Mr. Fraser: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he consider induction courses for traffic wardens to go into the police force after entrance examinations and further approaches to careers officers and youth employment bureaux with a view to getting coloured cadets as well as coloured policemen?

Mr. Carlisle: Certainly we shall do what we can, through career opportunities and youth employment officers, to encourage people of all colours to join the police cadet force. I shall have to consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman about traffic wardens.

Mr. Goodhart: As it is plain that the recruitment of more coloured policemen would be the best possible way of improving relations between coloured communities and the police, will my hon. and learned Friend take up with community liaison officers the idea of approaching headmasters and careers masters to draw the attention of school leavers to the opportunities available?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall certainly do so. There has been an increase, though only a small one, in the number of coloured people in police forces. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commissioner's staff attends career conferences and has visited schools to provide information about
 


careers in the Metropolitan Police—and it will continue to do so.

Discharged Prisoners (Aid)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as requested by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Howard League, he will increase the discharge amount given to a discharged prisoner.

Mr. Carlisle: Account will be taken of these suggestions when the existing arrangements are reviewed later this year.

Mr. Lamont: Could not this suggestion be adopted with little cost and to great advantage, since the allowance has not been adjusted since 1964? Is it not the case that very few prisoners have accommodation arranged for them in advance of leaving prison, and that those who do not often get caught in a vicious circle, for they cannot get social security benefit without giving an accommodation address and they cannot get an accommodation address because they cannot afford the down payment of rent? Should not official policy facilitate adjustment to the outside world, rather than increase the pressures which can lead only to the road back to jail?

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. We should do all we can to ease back into society those who are at the end of their prison sentences. On the question of rent, as well as the discharge grant there is power to make an advance payment of rent of up to £4 to the person who provides accommodation for a homeless ex-prisoner. These matters will be reviewed later this year.

Mr. Thomas Cox: In view of the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) is it not clear that the important question concerns the amount of money which must be paid for furnished accommodation? I am pleased that the Minister is to consider this matter, but will he bear in mind that £4 will not find accommodation in London or any other part of the country?

Mr. Carlisle: The £4 is an advance payment to the landlady. The purpose of the discharge grant, as such, is merely to tide a person over following his
 

immediate release from prison, but, as I said, the existing arrangements are to be reviewed later this year.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Some of these discharged prisoners live in "halfway houses", of which there is one in my constituency. Will my hon. and learned Friend say what arrangements are being made to ensure that those who live in these houses, if they are in remote areas, have the opportunity of seeking jobs, are given the opportunity to know where vacancies exist, and are financially able to seek the work that they undoubtedly need?

Mr. Carlisle: I think I am right in saying that the hostel to which my hon. Friend refers also provides sheltered workshops. Certainly those who go to a normal discharge hostel have everything done for them that can be done to help them to obtain employment and accommodation.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am sure that the Minister recognises that while the number of hostel places has increased slightly the number of places in Rowton Houses and their equivalent has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years. Will he therefore consider not only increasing the release grant but also the possibility of informing a social security office in the area to which the prisoner intends to go, so that that office can make the man advances until he finds accommodation? Will he also consider the question of insurance stamps, which stand in the way of many men getting employment, so that, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) said, they are driven back all too quickly to crime?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member has asked a fair number of questions. As for probation after-care hostels, I think I am right in saying that the voluntary bodies are providing more places—now at the rate of 200 places a year. The discharge grant does not directly affect this, but the Home Office has increased the weekly payment made towards places in these hostels. I shall consider the other matter raised by the hon. Lady but I must repeat that the discharge grant is merely a lump sum payment to tide a person over until he can apply in the normal way for whatever benefits he may be entitled to.

Licensing Law (Erroll Report)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has now received about the Erroll Committee; and what replies he has given.

Mr. Lane: About 335. The general line of reply has been that the views expressed will be considered before decisions are taken on the committee's recommendations.

Mr. Price: As action on the Erroll Committee Report is likely to be long-delayed will the Minister consider one specific point? Is he aware that some brewers are conducting a most vicious campaign against tenants of public houses? Hundreds of tenants are being kicked out and replaced by managers. Will the Government consider the possibility of introducing some form of protection for people whose only crime is that they are at the mercy of the brewers whose sole motive is financial greed?

Mr. Lane: These are lurid charges, and they are not the responsibility of the Home Office. I shall be glad to examine any evidence the hon. Member likes to give me.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since the House of Lords gave the proposal such a roasting the other day, shall we be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before a decision is taken? Is this the time to ease the licensing requirements for liquor, when all the indications are that the ill effects of alcoholism are increasing?

Mr. Lane: Obviously the question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We would welcome the views of hon. and right hon. Members on this important matter. We have had an airing of views in the other place, and even if this House does not debate the matter in the near future I hope that hon. Members will send us their views. The point raised by the hon. Member is one of the main criticisms put to us so far in representations from members of the public.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the Erroll Committee proposals go further than even the brewers wanted, for obvious political reasons?
 

How many of the letters he has received propose the lowering of the age at which drinking becomes legal from 18 to 17? Many hon. Members would oppose that proposal.

Mr. Lane: That is one of the most common points of criticism contained in the letters. Most of the comments we have received have been critical of one aspect or another of the Erroll Committee recommendations, and the one referred to by the hon. Member has caused a lot of anxiety among many people.

Firearms

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a policy announcement with regard to the import and sale of replica firearms.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I hope to include provisional proposals on this matter in the consultative document on firearms control which I expect to publish in the near future; but the House should not underestimate the difficulties involved.

Mr. Redmond: Has my hon. Friend seen these replica firearms, which are very vicious and are certainly not toys? Does he realise what offence has been given by the display of these ridiculous things in the Arndale shopping centre in Bolton, and is he aware of the number of letters that I have received on the subject?
Will he comment on the fact that the sale of these objects is illegal in Japan, where they are made, but that they can be sold freely here? Has he any idea who would buy one of these expensive things unless he had some dark and dirty deed in mind?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I have seen them and I hope shortly to include some proposals on the matter in my consultative document. I emphasise, however, that the matter is not as simple as it might seem at first sight. For example, it would be no good confining proposals literally to replicas.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It seems that fairly large quantities of these replica weapons are being imported now. Does the Home Secretary recall having a letter from a
 


docker in my constituency expressing great horror at what he was unloading from the ships and sending forward?

Mr. Carr: Yes. This is a serious matter and I intend to treat it seriously. Any change in our present position would require legislation, and would have to be dealt with in legislation on firearms control generally. That is why we need a consultative document.

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average sentence imposed for summary convictions under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 for the offence of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.

Mr. Carlisle: In the years 1969 to 1971, 11 of those found guilty by magistrates' courts in England and Wales of offences under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 were sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from two to six months, and 2,102 were fined. The average fine was £7·91.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary get in touch with the Lord Chancellor in another place as a result of comments made in this House a month ago on the question of sentencing? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it appears to a number of hon. Members that some of the judiciary are totally unaware of the stringent maximum level of penalties which Parliament laid down years ago? What did the Lord Chancellor say?

Mr. Carlisle: I assure my hon. Friend that the views expressed by hon. Members were brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as he promised to do, but I must reiterate that it is Parliament's duty to lay down penalties and it is the duty of the courts to determine the appropriate penalties, within those limits, in different cases. Offences of carrying firearms in public places, which include the carrying of air pistols, vary considerably in gravity.

Mr. Fidler: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that in order to deal with the problems to which he has referred it would be as well to increase the
 

penalties to a minimum of five years for carrying a firearm, 10 years for using it, and the death penalty for causing death by using it?

Mr. Carlisle: All the matters which my hon. Friend has raised are slightly outside Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have heard what he has said.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a short amnesty for those illegally possessing firearms in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce an amnesty for illegally held firearms.

Mr. R. Carr: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will seek the views of chief officers of police on whether it would be desirable to arrange a general firearms amnesty as soon as practicable or whether it would be preferable to consider the possibility of an amnesty in connection with any legislation that may follow the provisional proposals which will be published in the near future.

Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that there is a case for tougher penalties for those illegally possessing firearms but that more stringent conditions should apply for the annual re-licensing of firearms? Given that the Government are considering making alterations to the law, is there not a case for, for example, a three- to four-weeks' amnesty as a last chance for people to hand in that which they illegally possess?

Mr. Carr: I certainly think that there is a case for an amnesty. The question on which I am seeking advice is its timing —namely, whether it is better to have an amnesty now or as soon as we possibly can, or whether we should tie it up with the new law, if that is the conclusion to which my consultative proposals lead.

Mr. Cox: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Surely the reply he gave to me in answer to a Question on Tuesday indicates the urgency of this matter. In the last three years there
 


have been nearly 1,000 extra prosecutions of people holding illegal firearms. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and the general public do not want our police armed. Surely we have a duty to stop the use and the circulation of illegal arms. That is what the urgency is about.

Mr. Carr: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the urgency of the matter. However, we cannot have amnesties every year, or they will lose their effect. The only matter which I am considering is the question of the best time for an amnesty. I am properly considering that —with the Secretary of State for Scotland —by consulting chief constables.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In considering an amnesty will my right hon. Friend also consider the possibility of allowing, in conjunction with that amnesty, the sale of currently illegal arms to authorised arms dealers? Does he agree that such a policy might result in more currently illegal arms being withdrawn from circulation than would be the case with a simple amnesty?

Mr. Carr: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am a relative new-comer to these matters, and that suggestion is new to me. I shall think about it.

Mr. Ewing: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember, in the event of an amnesty, that it is very important for action in Scotland to take place simultaneously with action in England and Wales? It is important that action in Scotland should not be delayed. Will the Secretary of State impress that point upon the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Carr: That is one of the reasons— quite apart from the formal constitutional reason—why, in my answer, I coupled with mine the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly such action must coincide.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department whether he has completed his review of the law relating to the use of firearms.

Mr. R. Carr: My review of firearms law is nearly completed and I expect shortly to publish a consultative document setting out my provisional proposals for changes.

Mr. Taylor: Have the Home Secretary's inquiries revealed why no statistics are available on the number of crimes involving the use of firearms for any year before 1967? Secondly, have they identified any reason why the number of crimes involving the use of firearms has increased by more than 150 per cent. in five years?

Mr. Carr: I should require notice of those two questions. I do not see much merit in trying to ascertain why figures were not collected for a period which ended six years ago. I have already made it clear in the House and in public speeches outside that in the Home Office I am undertaking new inquiries to try to discover something more about the basic causes of violence.

Mr. Farr: When his Green Paper is introduced will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the illegal pool of firearms will not be eliminated by harassing the million or more legitimate holders of firearms licences?

Mr. Carr: It will certainly be no part of my plan unnecessarily to harass anyone. When I put forward my proposals they will have very much in mind the need to control all those sorts of weapons that may be, and unfortunately are, used from time to time.

Explosives (Storage Security)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the security precautions for explosives in explosive stores, magazines and other registered premises; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Carr: A review of the law relating to the security of explosives is in progress, and existing controls have already been tightened within the powers available under the Explosives Act 1875.

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that over the past three years there have been 99 attempted thefts of explosives from magazines and stores, and that no fewer than 92 of those have been successful? This is not a very impressive security record. In view of the obvious current danger, is not there a need for urgent attention to be given to this matter?

Mr. Carr: Before the latest worrying events in this country the Home Office had started tightening up under the existing law to which I referred. I have now thought it right to examine the existing law. I am not sure whether I took in my hon. Friend's statistics accurately. My figures indicated that thefts from licensed stores dropped from 28 in 1969 to 10 in 1972.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone can go into a local authority office, inspect and obtain a list of all registered premises holding explosives, and then go with a screwdriver and help himself to as much gelignite as he wants?

Mr. Carr: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may be right when he says that lists are available, but I am glad to say that I am sure that he is not right on the second part.

Remand Home Absconders

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences have been committed by young people who have absconded while in remand homes in Norfolk in the last six months; and how this figure compares with the same period last year.

Mr. Carlisle: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that 10 young people committed one or more offences while absent without leave from the remand home in Norfolk during the six months ended 28th February 1973; the corresponding figure for the six months ended 29th February 1972 is one.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is an alarming increase in the course of one year and that it would be very, very much greater if the general public pressed charges? Does not he further agree that although the people of Norfolk are kindly disposed towards these unfortunate people they feel that the time has come, in the interests of the police and local ratepayers, to insist that when people are remanded in custody they should be kept there?

Mr. Carlisle: A tenfold increase, even if it is from a base figure of only one, is nevertheless a major increase. I share my hon. Friend's view that those who
 

are committed on remand have been so committed because it is felt that they should not have bail, and that it is desirable that they should be kept there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering the adequacy of secure accommodation for people remanded in this way.

Police (Firearms)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the arming of the police.

Mr. R. Carr: The Home Office has received 55 letters on this subject in the last two years. Of these, 21 supported present practice, 12 favoured general arming of the police, and 12 were against the police being armed, or expressed concern at increasing police use of firearms. The remaining 10 were concerned with points of detail.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that according to official information guns were issued to qualified police marksmen last year at an average rate of six times a day? Can he confirm that two new guns which can penetrate light screening and still hit and kill will be available in London police stations and will be carried by policemen on protective duties within six months or a year, even though the Home Office circular makes it clear that police forces have up to 10 years to make these changes?

Mr. Carr: I cannot make a statement at the moment about types of guns, beyond saying that if the police are to be armed they should have proper weapons which fire with the greatest accuracy, and so forth. It is true that there has been this increase in the number of occasions on which police have been issued with arms. It is also true that in the past three calendar years police have used guns on only three occasions. I assure the House —because this is important—that I have asked the Inspectorate to pay special attention to the question of the issue of guns in its annual inspection of each police force.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the absence of the sanction of capital punishment it must inevitably follow, as night follows day,
 


that the police will end up by being armed?

Mr. Carr: That may be a matter tor debate but it does not arise on this Question. I do not think that I can accept my hon. Friend's premise.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the basis upon which the police are issued with arms is the same as it has traditionally always been and, secondly, that the issue of arms is to individuals and not for each incident? Will he point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) that in 1971 160 police officers were killed in the United States, where the police are armed, compared with two in this country—a United States figure 80 times as great as the United Kingdom one?

Mr. Carr: I confirm that there has been no change of any kind in the policy or the procedure relating to the issue of arms. They are issued only to individual officers for particular purposes, and there has been no change or relaxation of any kind. But, as I have said, in view of the increase— which is due to the increased number of occasions which justify it—I felt it advisable to ask the Inspectorate to pay special attention to this matter in its annual inspections.

Pentonville Prison (Deportation Wing)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conditions in the deportation wing of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentonville.

Mr. Carlisle: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd March.— [Vol. 853, c. 159.]

Mr. Davis: Is not the Home Office behaving in a thoroughly complacent manner about the conditions which people who face no criminal charges and who therefore have no convictions are obliged to endure in Pentonville Prison? Did not the Minister of State in another place say that conditions at Pentonville are far from satisfactory? Should not the Home Office be determined to find other accom-
 

modation for these people, bearing in mind that they are innocent?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Those who are sent to Pentonville in the first place have either been ordered to be deported or are awaiting a decision on their deportation following a conviction by the courts for a criminal offence in this country. It is true that at Pentonville, because of pressure, there are those who have either been caught illegally attempting to enter this country by various methods or, prima facie, appear to be evading the control on entry. The latter class have to be detained for a few days while inquiries are made. The other accommodation being full, it is regrettably a fact that those who are among the last category have also to be put in Pentonville.

Mr. John Fraser: Persons who are detained under Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 are being detained under a removal section. Can the Minister of State give any recent peacetime example whereby, under retroactive legislation, a person who has previously been immune from prosecution has been arrested and deprived of his liberty, ordered to be deported, deprived of any judicial review, and sent out of the country by executive action? If he can think of no precedent, in any event will he consider granting an amnesty to those people who were immune from prosecution before 1st January of this year?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate in any way to the original Question. However, since he has raised the matter I must tell him that the powers under the recent Immigration Act were given by Parliament after normal debate. The point to which I understand the hon. Gentleman is taking such grave objection is that, under the previous law, if anyone managed to evade being discovered for six months he was, irrespective of the fact that he had come here illegally, entitled to stay here for ever. I think that the vast majority of people in this country would think it right that if someone had chosen to come here illegally, even if he had done so six months earlier, consideration should still be given to the question whether he should be returned.

Mr. Fraser: If the Minister wants to make a deportation order, there is a judicial review by the Immigration Tribunal. He is using his powers of removal, which offer no review or any appeal of a judicial nature.

Mr. Carlisle: Such powers of removal were granted by this House after normal debate, and I believe that they are acceptable to the vast majority of British people. The hon. Gentleman says that these cases are not reviewed. As has been said on other occasions, each case is reviewed individually before any decision is taken.

Road Vehicles (Dangerous Loads)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to make mandatory the Tremcard warning system for all transport vehicles carrying potentially dangerous loads.

Mr. Lane: Regulations now being prepared will require vehicles conveying inflammable liquids and corrosive substances by road to carry information about the nature of the load and the measures to be taken in an emergency. Carriage of the appropriate Tremcard will satisfy this requirement. Similar regulations will later be made for other classes of dangerous substances.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for his customary consideration and sympathy, and for his statement, which will be welcomed by the House? I am grateful to him for acting comparatively quickly in this matter.

Mr. C. B. Clifford

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the application for immigration of Mr. C. B. Clifford of Calcutta, India, following the recent representations made to him by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

Mr. Lane: I have considered very carefully the further information which my hon. Friend has sent me, but I am not satisfied that Mr. Clifford is qualified to come here under the immigration rules.

Mr. Dykes: I return to the normal pattern of supplementary questions. My
 

hon. Friend is always extremely fair and painstaking on these occasions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The ordinary pattern is not a statement.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider this case? All the evidence clearly indicates that this man is a patrial under the revised immigration rules. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this case.

Mr. Lane: I shall pass over the blush-making preliminaries. I have considered this case carefully. On the evidence, Mr. Clifford is not a patrial. If there were any further evidence, for example, that his grandfather was born in the Isle of Wight, I would consider it. Meanwhile, I am willing to discuss the case.

Children and Young Persons Act 1968

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for bringing into effect further sections of the Children and Young Persons Act 1968.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has none at present, but he has, by order, raised to 12 the age up to which some provisions already in force will operate. The effect of the order, which comes into operation on 1st April, is to transfer from the probation service to local authorities responsibility for the supervision of children aged 10 and 11, and for the provision of home surroundings reports on children of those ages.

Mr. Archer: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons for that. However, does he agree that the presence of an implementation clause is to enable the Minister to defer the operation of a statute until the necessary arrangements have been made but not to delay it indefinitely because he disagrees with what Parliament said? Will the Minister explain how it comes about that although the non-implementation policy was announced publicly outside the House on 13th January, by the Secretary of State for Social Services, whenever I put down a Question to him about it the Question is transferred to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Carlisle: That is because the implementation of the Act is a matter for the Home Office and not the Secretary of
 


State for Social Services. The object of an implementation clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is to defer implementation. If, as happened in this case, one Parliament passes legislation but it falls to another Government to decide whether to implement it, they are entitled to decide which parts of the previous Parliament's legislation they will implement and which they will not.

Mr. Fry: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many magistrates feel that some sections of the Act which are already in force are not satisfactory? Before we implement any more of the Act, should we not review those parts already in operation?

Mr. Carlisle: I think I am right in saying that it was in the summer of 1970 that, as the responsible Minister in the Home Office, I announced which parts of the Act we intended to implement and which parts we did not. That remains the case. There has been a certain amount of review of the question of orders being made which put people into the care of local authorities.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Minister recognise that his answer is unsatisfactory? If a Government feel that Parliament has changed its mind they should repeal an Act rather than refuse to implement it. Has any pressure been brought to bear on local authorities to provide accommodation that would make the implementation of this Act possible? May I draw to the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the fact that without this Act being in operation we have had, in a recent case, extremely severe sentences being passed on young people? Is he aware that many of us feel that if the Act had been in operation those people would have been handled in a more humane and enlightened manner?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot accept what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks. The fact remains that the Act was passed by the previous Government. In Opposition we made our view clear, and it fell to this Government to decide which parts of the Act to implement. We implemented those parts which we believed it right to implement, and we have made it clear that at this stage we do not propose to implement those parts with which we disagree.

Mr. Archer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Commonwealth Immigrants (Repatriation)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his review of the operation of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, with regard to the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants.

Mr. R. Carr: Yes, Sir. As a result of my review I have authorised a number of relaxations in the criteria governing eligibility for assistance under this scheme and I will, with permission, circulate full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In particular, family groups whose weekly income is up to £5 above supplementary benefit level will now come within the scheme.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that statement, which I shall study. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern over the delays in applications being vetted? Will he confirm that he has come to the conclusion that the International Social Service is the right agency to implement Section 29 and, if so, will he say whether it is to be given additional personnel so that applications may be made more quickly?

Mr. Carr: If the organisation needs more staff I can assure my hon. Friend that it has only to come to me and talk about the question and I will consider it sympathetically. This organisation is a satisfactory one for the purpose. Some length of time is involved, because it is a welfare provision and the terms of the Act impose certain duties on whoever is operating the scheme to inquire into the circumstances of each family in relation to children, dependants, and all the rest. This is necessarily a somewhat lengthy business.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell us how many people were repatriated in the last 12 months, and what estimate he has made of the number likely to be repatriated under the new conditions? What increase is likely?

Mr. Carr: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers off the cuff. I think it was over 100 last year, and a further 100 under the supplementary benefit scheme. It is impossible to forecast what change these new, relaxed conditions will bring about.

VIETNAM

Ql. Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the respective heads of Government of North and South Vietnam to visit the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so. President Thieu may, however, be making a short visit here in April, and if he does I expect to meet him.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman seize the opportunity to press the cause of the 200,000 civilian political prisoners of all shades of political opinion, many of whom have no one to plead their cause, and many of whom are too ill to earn a living and have no homes or families to return to? Will he press not merely for their release but for an international rehabilitation operation under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees?

The Prime Minister: The objects of any talks we might have have not been fixed because it is not yet definite that President Thieu will come. There has been considerable conflict of view about the number of prisoners involved. It was agreed at the Paris conference that this was a matter which should be settled by the two parties in South Vietnam.

MIDDLE EAST

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an early official visit to the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for such a visit.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling abroad that, all other agencies having patently failed, Her Majesty's Government, either alone or in collaboration with our Community partners, might act as a catalyst to bring the two sides
 

together? Is he aware that the Arabs have at last conceded the right of Israel to exist but will not sit down and negotiate until she withdraws to her pre-1967 frontiers? Could my right hon. Friend not mediate?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Ministers of the Community have been discussing this matter. At the moment they do not feel that the time is right to take a fresh initiative. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the best means of trying to reach a solution would be by negotiation round a table. He is right that at the moment not all parties are prepared to do this. When meeting those concerned, I have always taken the opportunity to say that if either side is in doubt about the sincerity of the other the best way of testing the matter is to sit round a table.

Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most recent developments in Egypt show an increasing urgency for something to be done? Bearing in mind that Egypt responded favourably to the Jarring questionnaire and that the Soviet presence was thrown out of Egypt without much positive reply from the United States, could we not now put more pressure on the Americans to make them feel there is real urgency about getting a settlement in the immediate future?

The Prime Minister: I agree that there is a great degree of urgency here. The American administration is well aware of this and on my last visit to see President Nixon in Washington in February I discussed it with him. I do not think there is any doubt about the urgency of the need for action. What is difficult is to bring the parties concerned to the point where they negotiate.

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on counter-inflation delivered at the annual general meeting of the Bexleyheath Conservative Association on 9th March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 27th of March to the hon. Member for


Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).—[Vol. 853, c. 293.]

Mr. Roberts: In that speech my right hon. Friend offered a partnership to the trade unions in the management of the economy. Is it not clear that the trade unions should now accept this offer without delay, since it clearly involves an examination of the workings of the Industrial Relations Act with a view to amending phase 3 and such social objectives as the improvement of the conditions of the low-paid and, finally, a return to a free voluntary system of collective bargaining?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be possible to resume discussions of this kind. There were very fruitful discussions between the Government and the TUC at the beginning of the year, although the TUC did not find itself able to take part in stage 2 organisation. Nevertheless, we benefited from the views which it expressed. I hope that, on a wider front, this will now be possible. As the House will have seen, some of the proposals made yesterday by Mr. Scanlon would require amendments in the Industrial Relations Act. We have always offered to consider amendments which are suggested. This has been a long-standing offer, which was made right at the beginning of the Chequers talks, but this is the first time that specific matters have been mentioned.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister had time to study Mr. Scanlon's suggested amendments? If so, does he think that he will be able to accept them? That seems a very important point. In view of his own speeches and in addition to these proposals from Mr. Scanlon, which seem to make for a better atmosphere, does the Prime Minister now propose to invite the trade unions to meet him to discuss amendments to the Act and, indeed, the future of the counter-inflation policy in general?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, there has obviously not been time yet to consider the proposals of Mr. Scanlon in detail. The TUC will expect the Government to consider amendments from the TUC itself. That would be the normal way of handling such matters. There is a standing invitation to the TUC to discuss this whenever it wishes.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that while the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled to be either for or against the Labour Party's backing industrial action against the Government's counter-inflation policy, it is the negation of political leadership for him to abstain in a vote on this issue at a meeting of the Labour Party's National Executive? Should not the Leader of the Opposition come clean —or shall we have to wait until the next edition of Cecil King's diaries to find out the truth?

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) persistently to attempt to disrupt and waste time during Prime Minister's Questions by directing questions to the Leader of the Opposition? Is it not a fact that questions should be directed only to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point, I think that I had better say that no question of order arises.

Mr. Edward Short: In reply to the last question, the Prime Minister said that the unions had a standing invitation to discuss "this" at any time. Is he saying that they have a standing invitation to discuss the Industrial Relations Act and its revision at any time?

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed, and to discuss any other matters which they wish to raise.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On inflation, which is the subject of this speech, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on arm-twisting the building societies to postpone their increase until after the GLC and other elections—[Interruption.]—this affects 5 million families in this country, and I expect an answer—but is he aware that as a result of his policy some building societies have already raised their rates to 9½ and 10 per cent., and that a general rise is now regarded in the movement as inevitable? How does he reconcile this, first, with his election pledges and, second, with his standstill and prices and incomes restraint?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has constantly to be told that in his own arrangements for a standstill


he did not seek to take control over interest rates; neither have this Government, because it is one of the features of the regulation of the economy. As for the building societies, I know that individual societies have made their own arrangements but, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the Government are in consultation with the Building Societies Association and the association itself has not yet made any recommendation.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has given this answer several times when I have put this question to him. Does he not realise that this has nothing to do with the regulation of the economy, with the old use of Bank Rate, which was a casual factor in regulation? Is he aware that the building society movement is saying, and saying rightly, that this is the result of the Government's introduction of new banking regulations in 1971, which meant that the Government had no control over the situation? Will he now act? Does he agree with the figure given in the House yesterday of an increase from just over £5,000 to £8,500 in the average cost of a new house in this country in the fourth quarter of last year, compared with only two years earlier? What calculation has been made of how a young family on an average income can afford a mortgage at 10 per cent. on that basis?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the position. The ability of the authorities to intervene to influence interest rates through open market operations is the same today as it has always been.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the points made by the Leader of the Opposition are real and important to the people of this country? The increases in the cost of houses and in interest rates are a direct result of inflation. Could he not call upon the Opposition and the trade unions to play a real part in trying to end inflation?

The Prime Minister: I have constantly invited the TUC and the CBI to assist in the battle against inflation, and I think that the response there will have been more effective than would be the case if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon.

Friends were so invited. So far as I can see, they are spending their time supporting political strikes.

EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Golding: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association on 7th March in respect of equipment suppliers represents Government policy.

Mr. Charles: R. Morris asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association concerning equipment supplies on Wednesday 7th March 1973 represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Golding: Before he made that speech was the Minister told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact of VAT would be on telephone charges? Was he aware that cheap calls from coin boxes were to go, and that subscribers were to have 10 per cent. added to their bills, at a time of standstill? Further, will he tell us when a decision will be taken by the Government on TXE4?

The Prime Minister: Value added tax has been debated in the House on many occasions, and the consequences were known on the prices which will decrease as well as on those which will increase. But my right hon. Friend was not dealing with that subject in that speech. It is not yet possible to announce the exact date for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Gorst: In view of the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of the Government to increase the amount of liberalisation and competition in our telephone service?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend dealt at some length with this matter and showed that there is now a good working relationship between the Post Office and the suppliers, and that
 


the Post Office has a responsibility not only to its customers but also to those who supply the equipment, from the point of view of our long-term plans. I also believe—and I think that my hon. Friend shares this view—that the Post Office has a responsibility to supply us with materials which can be exported. It is important that home and overseas supplies should move together.

Mr. Morris: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Minister might have taken this opportunity to alert the telephone equipment manufacturers to the impact which VAT and increased installation charges are likely to have on the demand for telephone installations? Is it the Government's policy and intention, in terms of cost, to put the telephone beyond the reach of ordinary families? Will he guarantee that telephone rental, installation and unit charges will not be increased during the Government's price restraint policy?

The Prime Minister: That matter concerns VAT. There is no intention to put telephones outside the grasp of the ordinary person. The facts which my right hon. Friend outlined show that demand is very great indeed, and likely to remain so. The net growth of the system this year is forecast to be 9·8 per cent.—nearly 10 per cent.—which shows how substantial the demand is.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: rose—

Hon. Members: Question No. 6.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the Prime Minister confirm that these increases will amount to £35 million on private subscribers, and that this £35 million increase has nothing to do with the Post Office or with its workers' wages but is simply the result of VAT? Does he also agree that it will result in a reduction in the demand for telephones and affect the Post Office programme?

The Prime Minister: The whole question of the balance of VAT has been debated many times in the past. The hon. Gentleman knows the situation. As I have emphasised, the demand for the telephone system is now very great

indeed. The companies recognise this. The companies are working on long-term plans. [Interruption.] I hope that I have said enough to convince the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Question No. 6.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was just as interested as anyone else to go to Chesterfield, but the time has gone.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Are not there abundant precedents, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. Member has been called to put a Question—even if you, Mr. Speaker, change your mind afterwards—for the hon. Member to be allowed to put that Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had called Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it have been in order for the Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), to give assurances about the efficiency of telephonic communications between Wolverhampton and Chats-worth?

Mr. Speaker: I do not detect a point of order, or much else, in that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The business for the next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2ND APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Second Reading of the Costs in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motions relating to the Sugar (Distribution Payments) Orders.
TUESDAY 3RD APRIL—Supply (14th allotted day).
There will be a debate on Prices and Europe, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Remaining stages of the Administration of Justices Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order and on the Anti-Dumping Duty Order
WEDNESDAY 4TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Protection of Aircraft Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Bill [Lords] and of the Education Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Education (Work Experience) Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modifications) Order and on the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme.
THURSDAY 5TH APRIL—Supply (15th allotted day).
There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Costs in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Motor Cycles (Wearing of Helmets) Regulations.
FRIDAY 6TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9TH APRIL—Supply (16th allotted day).
Debate on a subject to be announced.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position yet to tell the House when we may expect the debate in Government time on television and broadcasting?
Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 257 about Commonwealth sugar? In view of the deep anxiety, which is not confined to the Opposition side of the House, that, as we forecast two years ago, the Commonwealth sugar producers have been sold down the river in the negotiations in Brussels, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an authoritative Government statement on this matter next week?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week on the subject of building society

mortgages in view of the clear lack of understanding on the part of the Prime Minister about either the causes of the rise in interest rates or what it means for an average family?
[That this House, noting the forthcoming meeting in London between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the trade ministers of Commonwealth sugar-producing countries, calls on Her Majesty's Government to reaffirm in unqualified terms their commitment to ensuring the access of 1·4 millions tons per year of Commonwealth sugar to the European Economic Community.]

Mr. Prior: On the first point—a debate on broadcasting—I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, owing to the pressure of business, but I recognise that the House will want to have a debate, if I can arrange it. I do not think that it will be possible before Easter, but it will certainly be possible soon after Easter.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. But I am able to confirm that the 1·4 million tons, the figure for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, remains the Government's firm intention, as stated in the Lancaster House agreement of 1971.
Regarding building society mortgage rates, the building societies made a statement about 10 days ago and that remains the present position. But I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Stultaford: Will my right hon. Friend propose a motion to change the composition of Standing Committee G in respect of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill on the ground that it has not taken into account the views of the House as expressed in the Second Reading debate or the views of part of the Government side of the House as expressed in Early Day Motion No. 177? As it stands now, the Committee represents a manipulative measure more designed to assuage the anxieties of party managers than to be fair to Government back benches, and so does not represent fair principles of democracy and will tend to bring into disrepute the workings of the House in the country.
[That this House, taking account of a recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in its Fifth Report, that the Government should take immediate steps to provide comprehensive family planning and birth control services as a normal part of the National Health Service, and noting the Amendment (No. 37) made to the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill in the House of Lords to the effect that no charge should be made for such services or medical supplies, calls upon the Government to act without delay on these two propositions.]

Mr. Prior: The answer to that is "No, Sir." I believe that over the years the Selection Committee has done an extremely good job for all hon. Members, and I think that it must be a matter for the Selection Committee and not for other hon. Members to interfere.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Has the right hon. Gentleman read what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday, reported at c. 1308 of HANSARD, about the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate to cover the supplementary payments to refiners in the United Kingdom to improve the margin? When is it likely that we shall get this Supplementary Estimate, and why is it that the Supplementary Estimate will cover only the period until 30th June? Would not it be wise for the Estimate to cover a period much longer than that?

Mr. Prior: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend. I could not give an answer myself, but I shall let my right hon. Friend know, and I shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is my right hon. Friend able to say when the promised announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment about the allocation of rooms in Somerset House will be made to the House?

Mr. Prior: I have written to my hon. Friend on this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend is holding consultations and hopes that these will be completed shortly.

Mr. Urwin: The right hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member

for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), which is aimed at outlawing labour-only subcontracting, but is he aware of the growing urgency of the situation in the construction industry and of the very serious problems which are evolving, primarily for local authorities, in the construction of council housing because of the operation of labour-only sub-contracting? Does not he agree that people involved in this pernicious practice can virtually demand their own price for their labour, completely outwith the construction industry's negotiated agreement? Having regard to these very difficult problems, will the Leader of the House seriously consider allowing Government time—because my hon. Friend's Bill will take some time to become a Statute—for the House to discuss the serious problems affecting local authorities not only in London but throughout the country?

Mr. Prior: I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will no doubt discuss them. We all recognise the need to keep down the cost of building wherever possible.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the lies put out by Mark Press against this country—and I remind the House that Mark Press is the Irish Republic's public relations company—that there is no trail of guns, ammunitions and explosives from Eire into Northern Ireland for use by the IRA, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible about the steps which are being taken to stop ships carrying such cargo coming from the Mediterranean—one of which, as we heard yesterday evening, was captured by the Eire Government? What surveillance is being maintained to prevent the importation and smuggling of guns and explosives into Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: This is a subject which my hon. Friend can raise this afternoon, but on the whole I believe that the House has good reason to be satisfied with the news today.

Mr. Faulds: Since it is now generally accepted that the Government are about to abandon the imposition of museum charges, will the Leader of the House clear the air for staff and trustees of the national institutions, and lessen the hesitations of intending benefactors, by
 


making clear that the Government will announce the abandonment of this ridiculous scheme?

Mr. Prior: I have no further statement to make on that subject.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to find time to debate the reintroduction of capital punishment for politically-motivated crimes?

Mr. Prior: I can see no time available in the immediate future, although I understand there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss this matter briefly in the next week or so.

Mr. David Steel: When will the Leader of the House set up the Select Committee on British interests in South Africa, in view of the encouragement given to this course by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Prior: There is, of course, concern about this matter, which the whole House shares, but I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.

Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that within the next week or 30 days he will allow time for a debate on the ever-increasing pile of secondary legislation that is coming in from the Common Market in draft form? Is he aware that this deals with basic domestic laws and that these matters are being debated elsewhere but not in this House? That is not right

Mr. Prior: I hope to find some time in the near future to bring about what my hon. Friend has long wished for.

Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand the first issue of the draft agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in April—a document which was made available for the first time only yesterday? Is he aware that the agenda contains many important items, including amendment of the law on tachographs, aid for hill farmers, pricing policy in the Common Market for 1973–74 and many other matters which are to be discussed next month at the meeting of the Ministers? Will he arrange to find time, if not this week then the following week, to discuss some of these matters? Will he think again about making an oral statement on the

draft agenda for the Council rather than making a statement in written form?

Mr. Prior: I hope that it is proving of some convenience for the House to have this list of likely items in the discussion which will take place. As for the making of monthly oral statements about each month's forecast of business, I confirm what I said in my statement on 13 th March I then informed the House, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill), that a forecast of each month's business would be deposited with us on Tuesday. We can discuss the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the debate which I have promised before Easter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the statement yesterday by the Minister that the Bill to enable elections to be held in Northern Ireland will be put before the House as soon as possible, and because of the urgency of these elections, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is to be presented?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may have more to say about that subject this afternoon. I will leave it to him.

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further about a Select Committee on South Africa? We regarded the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday on this subject as helpful, but is the Leader of the House aware that if the Prime Minister's statement is to mean anything—and I believe that it was intended to mean something—either the existing Select Committee must interpret its terms of reference in a way which will enable it to go to South Africa or to send hon. Members to South Africa, or —as would appear to be more appropriate—the Government, and the Leader of the House himself, must take the initiative in establishing a new committee. Will he move to set up a new Select Committee? If not, does he agree that it is within the authority of existing Select Committees to make their own arrangements to go to South Africa?

Mr. Prior: I am not convinced that a new Select Committee is required—given that other Select Committees may consider that this is a matter for them to go into, and given also the other action which is now being taken.

Mr. Frank Allaun: When are we to have the promised Government proposals to deal with land hoarding? It may be remembered that the Secretary of State for the Environment promised that they would be produced this month. He will have a job to produce them this month when one considers that today is 29th March. Is there some difficulty in plugging up loopholes in the legislation, or is there some other reason for delay? May we be told when the House will have the proposals?

Mr. Prior: Early next month.

Mr. Winterton: The House has spent considerable time recently in debating family planning. Would it not help those in this House who have young families to plan for the future if they knew details of the Easter recess? May we now have the details?

Mr. Prior: Not this week.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Hardman Committee report is to be discussed in the House, or, indeed, how it will be dealt with? This is a matter of considerable public interest in terms of the future of Western Scotland and at the moment it is difficult to know how the Government intend to process that report.

Mr. Prior: It is an important report, and some time ago I told the House that it had been received. Consultations are now taking place, and I will convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the appropriate quarters.

Mr. Thorpe: The Leader of the House was trying to be helpful in saying that he felt that there was no need for a new Select Committee to be set up on the question of South Africa, and he implied

that he felt that an existing Select Committee might be adequate to deal with this problem. Which Select Committee did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind?

Mr. Prior: It is not for me to give that information. There are opportunities for the various Select Committees to interest themselves in this matter if they wish to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point, will the right hon. Gentleman, before he meets me at 5.30 p.m. today to discuss this matter further, consider whether a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee might go into this matter, especially since one sub-committee is about to complete its work on regional incentives? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether its chairman and members would be willing to take on this new task? If that were done, perhaps our meeting would be more fruitful.

Mr. Prior: This is a matter for Select Committees or for their sub-committees to decide for themselves.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, will the Minister look into the situation before 5.30 this afternoon, because my inquiries show that some members of the subcommittee of the Expenditure Committee to which I have referred would be willing to take on this task before Easter?

Mr. Prior: I am not certain that it is the job of the Leader of the House to direct any sub-committee or Select Committee to inquire into anything. It is a matter for them.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have before us a very important debate.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (WHITE PAPER)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th March],
That this House approves the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals (Command Paper No. 5259).—[The Prime Minister.]

Question again proposed.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The question which the House has to decide tonight involves the acceptance or rejection of the logic of the constitutional White Paper on Northern Ireland. I believe that the Government had the right to ask for a clear decision. This is not a Green Paper on the future constitution of Northern Ireland, nor can the present state of the Province stand a "take note" attitude in this debate. What is before us is a draft constitution which the people of Northern Ireland—and it is their choice, and theirs alone—must accept or reject, as a basis for further discussion or debate on detail, but on the basis of implementation of its principles.
On that choice depends not only the immediate problem of peace and reconciliation in the Province but also the whole issue of the link with Britain. Comfortable though it may seem to some, no one in Ulster, in our view, can in one breath reject the White Paper and in the next say he is doing so to prove his loyalty to Britain, his desire to show that he is more British than the British. The oft-abused word "loyalist" is now to be put to the test, as indeed are all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland. Therefore, if tonight's vote is challenged, my right hon. Friends and I will vote for the White Paper in the Lobby and we appeal to as many of our hon. Friends as possible to vote with us.
This does not mean that we regard the White Paper as perfect. It does mean that we accept from the Government that they have approached this problem on the basis of the fullest possible consideration and consultation. Indeed, it could be said that they have delayed their decision almost to the point of danger. We accept, and we hope the House will

accept, that the White Paper, in the Government's judgment—and it is their judgment; it must be—is the fairest and most balanced proposition they feel they can put forward. That is the Government's assertion, and they have the right to ask for the backing of this House not only for a fair consideration but, more than that, for its full-hearted implementation by the people of Northern Ireland.
To us this is an honest attempt to put constitutional flesh and blood on the bones of the Downing Street Agreement of 20th August 1969, which the then Government regarded as a corollary to our action in putting in British troops in a major security rôle. In the longer term, it must be regarded as aimed at providing a basis for creating a situation in which the troops could in fact be withdrawn and purely civilian safeguards for law and order left to operate. But this must obviously be a long-term development.
We could criticise this or that particular paragraph or proposal, but in the last resort the judgment must be that of the Northern Ireland communities themselves. It is not for us in this House, I suggest, to amend, still less to encourage factional division on, detailed proposals. We, this House, and Northern Ireland have already waited too long. But the people of Northern Ireland must realise that if on a free vote, in the security of the ballot box, they reject the main principles of this document, this must inevitably mean an agonising reappraisal over the whole field of the Great Britain-Northern Ireland relationship.
In giving the Government full support in the lobbies tonight, should a Division be called, this does not mean that we endorse all the decisions and policies which have led us and Northern Ireland to the point at which this White Paper is presented. The Secretary of State would not expect that. There have been errors —errors of judgment, in our view, though not in the main basically misdirected policies. Perhaps most of all there have been errors of timing, and failure to capitalise on opportunities presented either by outside events or sometimes by well-thought-out actions of the Government themselves.
We regret that the Government did not take action nearly two years ago now when we called for virtually total withdrawal of gun licences. We believe that


the internment decision as soon as the House was up in August 1971 heralded a new and much more dangerous situation from which we are still barely recovering. And, again, for too long there was too confident a belief, repeatedly stated, that the security operations were about to come out on top against the wreakers of violence.
Again, when we thought the Government were prepared to enter into all-party talks here and in both the areas of the Irish dimension on our 15-point proposals, there was, first, delay and then a sudden change of front on the part of the Government, immediately after Lord Devlin's BBC programme. Following that programme, the Government reacted wrongly, in our view. But they decided and announced—and this was fully within their rights as a Government—that they would produce their own solution.
That solution took the best part of three months, during which there was Bloody Sunday, during which paramilitary mobilisation developed on the other side. Seventeen weeks passed, in fact, before the Government were ready to announce their proposals, and there was an unfortunate leak, very early in that period, of the main principles on which they had decided. This inflamed attitudes in the North and drove hard-line militants to redouble their preparations.
The proposals, when they finally came just a year ago, were, despite the loss of irrecoverable time, rightly judged, in our opinion, and we said so at the time. They fell far short of our own proposals, but we gave them our full support. We had never sought recourse to direct rule any more than had the Government. Neither of us wanted it. But in the circumstances of a year ago the Government had no option, and we gave them our fullest backing in the Division Lobby. As the Prime Minister recalls, I took a ministerial broadcast reply for one purpose only—to make it clear, above all in Northern Ireland, that he had the full support of the Opposition in the action he had taken.
Having set out what we consider to be the unfortunate aspects of the Government's policy during those months before direct rule, I think it right to say, and it must be said, that the right hon.

Gentleman the Secretary of State, once he had assumed the invidious and unsought responsibility as arbiter of the fortunes of the Northern Ireland people, in our view discharged his proconsular responsibilities with an even hand, with a growing degree of trust, with courage, and indeed, on more than one occasion, with imagination. He was criticised for meeting the IRA, and indeed he has regretted it since. I think that, however unfortunately that turned out, he was right to do it, as I believe we were right in similar and equally unproductive action. He showed parallel courage in the release of some internees, thought it is arguable that he had the worst of both worlds in that while releasing so many he did not seek the advantages he might have derived by ending internment entirely, as was expected when direct rule was introduced.
It is easy, looking back, to regard Operation Motorman as a success so obvious that he might have done it at any time, but that cannot have been now it appeared to the right hon. Gentleman and the security forces in advance of that difficult operation. I think we were all delighted that it went through so successfully and speedily and with minimal loss of life. With hindsight, it was easy to say he could have done it before, but it was an act of courage when it happened which could have led to a heavy loss of life.
Some of us felt—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may later himself have come to feel—that the political bonus which he gained from the success of that operation might have been used almost within the hour to enable him to grasp the nettle of internment. For, whatever the military and security arguments for internment, no one can deny that, as we warned, for every murderer or potential murderer interned—and I say nothing of those who were wrongly interned—ten or a dozen or more young people were recruited to the cause of violence, to the forces of evil, as though dragons' teeth had been sown and sprung to arms.
Throughout this period we continued without avail to press for energetic action against the private holding of lethal weapons, against the tolerance of illegal paramilitary political forces provocatively flaunting their illegal uniforms, against their implied threat to law and order.
We on this side of the House have consistently argued—indeed, it was the whole basis of the Downing Street Declaration in 1969—that the problems of Northern Ireland were not susceptible to a purely military solution, that there must be a political solution. But despite all our reservations about what had happened, the delays and the missed opportunities, as we see them, the errors, above all of timing, we regard it as our duty today to join the Government in commending to the people of Northern Ireland the political solution they have devised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has set out our approach to the individual issues raised in the White Paper. I do not think it profitable for us to seek to amend, still less to interpret, the individual paragraphs with a nicely calculated less-or-more argument. It is as a package that the Government have presented these proposals to the House and it is as a package that they must be taken or rejected by this House, and still more by the people of Northern Ireland.
But I join with my hon. Friend in pressing with all the emphasis at our command the paramount need for speedy elections. I think Northern Ireland wants elections. I believe the people in Northern Ireland really need elections, after all they have been through. They need an opportunity to register a vote for their own future, rather than feel that they are being pushed around, whether by politicians whose gold backing in terms of electoral support has not yet been proved, or, worse still, by men of violence on either side.
I plead with the Government not to allow the Assembly elections to be delayed until the autumn. Whatever hope, whatever magic, even, there is in the White Paper can be destroyed in the torrid high noon of the marching season this summer. There is no possible justification for delay. The Government must produce their legislation, whether one Bill or more, with the utmost speed. It is a reflection, perhaps, on their foresight and planning—and I think that the Secretary of State will not object to what I am saying here—that, eight months after Operation Motorman, the Bill is not ready with the White Paper. We made clear, the day after the White Paper was

published, our determination to give the Government all reasonable assistance in speeding the passage of the legislation, whether it be one Bill or more than one.
Should there be any doubts on this score, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South has proposed that the representation of the people clauses of the legislation should be in a separate Bill which would be given right of way over all the other Ulster legislation. If that is decided upon, we shall support it. But if that path cannot be followed for any reason, if the electoral provisions are to be included in the major constitutional Bill, I hope that there will be no argument to the effect that the electoral procedures—the machinery—cannot be set in motion until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. I hope that the passage of the Second Reading of the Bill, in whatever form, would be taken by the Government as giving parliamentary authority for going ahead with all the decisions and electoral machinery procedures that are required. If there are any arguments about that proposal, we would be prepared to make another one—to support a special motion in the House authorising the Government to proceed with the necessary pre-election arrangements.
We urge that the Assembly elections must be held within the next three months. We must not allow the commitment to hold the postponed local elections in May to stand in the way. There are two arguments here. First, even those who feel it right to have the local elections before the Assembly elections ought, in our view, to agree that this order of priorities should not be insisted upon if it means putting off the Assembly elections to the autumn. In our view, there is an undeniable argument on merit for saying that the Assembly elections should precede the local elections.
If the local elections come first, they will inevitably be fought much more on the White Paper than on local issues. There are many acute students of these matters, from within and without Northern Ireland, who believe that, at the end of the day, when the nightmare of these past years is over, it will be the progress at local, community level in housing and other community problems that can ultimately be the greatest healing factor of all.
Secondly, there is the danger that local elections fought primarily on a factional or sectarian basis will not only fail to give an opportunity for the silent, non-sectarian or cross-sectarian votes to express a constructive vote; there is the further danger that the voting might have a further and undesirable reaction on the Assembly elections themselves if they were to come later.
Then again, there is the additional practical factor that two elections within so short a period could impose an excessive strain both on the financial and on the organisational resources of parties and groupings, particularly the smaller ones, which have the right to be heard and to support in the ballot box. I urge the Government at all costs to ensure that the Assembly elections are held before the end of June.
It may be that the Secretary of State is loath to postpone the local elections for a second time. We understand his problem. We shall not criticise him if he does so, and I do not think that others will. We shall support him. But I hope that he will accept our arguments for ensuring that, whenever the local elections come, they will follow and not precede the Assembly elections. I owe what I have to suggest now to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, hopes to develop the proposal further.
We propose that the Government should now publish the date for the Assembly elections, giving this House and all in Northern Ireland the timetable necessary for all the premilinaries to be carried through on a D-10 or D-20 or D-2 months basis so that we can all see the timetable we are working on—and above all so that the people of Northern Ireland can see it.
Nothing so concentrates the mind of democracy in a period of major constitutional change as a fixed date. That was Earl Attlee's achievement in India. It has been a constitutional catalyst. More than that, it has provided a degree of constitutional magic time after time in situations not all that different from this one.
I must refer to points raised in the debate by a number of hon. Members

about representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster. We support the White Paper on this question. It is not only that an increase in the numbers of Northern Ireland Members here would sharply increase the possibility that the majority of any Government, Conservative or Labour, could depend on a predominantly Unionist vote. I believe that this is an important issue relevant to the governance of Northern Ireland itself. For example, Sir Winston Churchill's Government in 1951 might not have been able to introduce a major Irish measure because of that level of dependence on the Northern Irish vote, which at the time was largely concentrated in a single party.
Again, if the Prime Minister himself in June 1970 had acquired an overall majority of, say, 10 or 12, even the present degree of Ulster representation, without expansion, could, if all the Unionists were hostile, have prevented him from carrying this White Paper through except with the support of the Opposition.
I say with the greatest respect to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—and, however much we may disagree with a number of things said and with certain events in the past, we in this House have genuine respect for other points of view—that I do not need to underline the dangers for Northern Ireland policy if a Government with a highly vulnerable majority in this House had to negotiate a fair and balanced package with all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland when one such section had a virtual veto in Westminster.
I have said that we are not going to criticise individual paragraphs of the White Paper. But the Government have left a number of important questions open, some of which are, I think, rightly intended to be left for the people of Northern Ireland themselves to pronounce upon, with the Secretary of State taking certain final decisions. One of these relates to power sharing. This is not in any sense spelt out in the White Paper I for one would be content with that, on the assumption that the Government intend to take their final decisions after, and not before, the election of the Assembly.
Clearly, the Secretary of State should be free to discuss these matters, but the whole White Paper and all it represents


could be imperilled if there were to be any question of a prior deal with one or other faction in Northern Ireland. I hope I am wrong in reading the conference proceedings of one Northern Ireland party last Tuesday as implying a demand for separate negotiations before the election of the Assembly, or separate clarifications or—still worse—a separate deal with the Secretary of State, going beyond the parameters of the White Paper. It would not be playing straight with the House of Commons or with the people of Northern Ireland if what we are asked to approve today could be changed by separate and secret negotiations. Indeed, a unilateral deal made at the expense of the views and interests of other parties with equal right to be heard would not be conducive to a final settlement, still less to a spirit of reconciliation.
Power sharing has been left vague, which creates great difficulty for many interests in Northern Ireland of every point of view. The Irish dimension has been left vague. I myself have been thinking a great deal about this, and I do not complain on the point. This matter involves the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who had been barely confirmed in office when the White Paper was almost in final draft.
But the Government's proposal for a tripartite conference is, in our view, right. I would go further and describe it as imaginative—if I did not regard it as the adoption in miniature of the kind of consultations between Westminster, Belfast and Dublin envisaged in my 15-point programme. So, obviously, because of my usual modesty, I will restrain my hyperbole and just say it is right.
I hope, however, that the Government will not seek to set arbitrary limits on the issues which can be debated either in that conference or, ultimately, in the Council of Ireland when it is established. If the Council of Ireland is to be regarded simply as a soulless economic, consultative body, a sort of all-Irish OECD or a glorified chamber of commerce, not only will a great opportunity be missed but disillusion could set in fast, North and South of the border—and disillusion in Ireland spells danger.
The theme of my 15-point speech, as long ago as November 1971, was that when men have nothing to hope for, men
 

of violence have everything to shoot for. The proposals on the Irish dimension must therefore provide hope. As I argued in that speech so long ago, it is in my view essential that, within the terms of reference of the Council of Ireland or the tripartite commission which I proposed in my second point, there should be provision for the examination of what would be involved in agreeing on a constitution of a united Ireland—while repeating once again my fifth principle, namely no union without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, what I was proposing then and propose now is that, without prejudice to the right of the Northern Ireland people to decide their own future, as set out in the Attlee Declaration, in the 1969 Downing Street Declaration and again in this White Paper—and, I understand in the legislation which is to follow—the Council of Ireland should have power—if this is agreed—to embark on what might be called a feasibility study to include an examination of the very deep social and economic questions which would require solution in a United Ireland.
In my speech of November 1971 I suggested that a term of 15 years was the minimum required for the implementation of such a proposal, even granted the full acceptance of the principle by the people of Northern Ireland. But I believe that peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland will be assisted if, following the discussions with the proposed Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic, such terms of reference could be included in the work of the Council of Ireland.
This White Paper is an answer to our demand for a political solution. It is perilously late but it accepts our point that while the security forces must be given every backing in getting on top of violence, there is at the end of the road no military solution but only a political solution. We emphasise that that political solution must give the right of free expression, as the White Paper proposes, to all those in Northern Ireland who believe that reason, tolerance and compromise, not violence or the veneration of long-dead household gods, should be the basis of the creation of the Northern Ireland of the future.
This is a problem not for Northern Ireland only, it it ever was. It is a problem and a challenge to hon. Members on this side of the water and all whom we represent here. There is hardly an hon. Member from England, Scotland or Wales who does not know constituents who have served in the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, in many cases not just once or twice, but three or four times, and now a fifth time. Each of us knows and the Government know, the appalling strain on the Armed Forces, on our constituents. Their loyalty and dedication to duty is not in question. This has been shown.
But we have a duty, too—and that is not to impose on the loyalty and dedication of the Armed Forces more than they can reasonably be asked to bear. They were put in to hold the ring and to preserve an impartial security authority, and they were cheered when they went into action in August 1969. They were never asked by their presence to provide a political solution, still less to provide a military solution in the absence of a political solution.
There are many Members in this House who mourn, just as every Northern Irish Member mourns, the loss of constituents, the direct victims of violence. Many on this side of the water know of the tragic loss of a young constituent and in some cases many constituents. Many of us have come to know something of the tragedy that has overtaken British homes on this side of the water. In my own constituency I can think of a young man who joined up because he could not get a job in an area of heavy youth unemployment, and very soon after he was killed his father committed suicide. This is not an isolated case and there is nothing more unjustified than for anyone in this House today to regard the events of Northern Ireland as taking place in a far away country of which we know little or nothing, or care nothing. It is not a far away country. It is not even a problem on our doorstep. It is a problem within our curtilage, and we all bear responsibility for it.
It is a problem not only for those who in Northern Ireland are of an age to pronounce and vote under the terms of this White Paper. As much as anything, it is a problem of education. My right
 

hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), whose own courageous and imaginative contribution to the solution of these problems in the troubled months of 1969 and 1970 will be remembered for all the years to come, once put the issue very simply. "What a difference there would be in Northern Ireland", he said, "if the schoolchildren of the two main communities were learning their Irish history from the same textbooks."
That was some time ago, but some of the children still at school when he spoke have already been recruited into what 18 months ago, recalling a famous Will Dyson cartoon, I called the class of 1990. Perhaps I was optimistic and looking too far ahead. The age of consent in terrorist terms has now reached so young a generation that I should have referred then to the class of 1980 or even 1975.
The House today faces a great responsibility. I have expressed our reservations, as I have a right and a duty to do, about errors of judgment or of timing over this past two years. They will not affect the vote I shall cast or the vote I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to cast this evening. Still less, I hope, will ancestral voices of the 'twenties or the nineteenth, eighteenth or seventeenth centuries dictate the response, whether of hon. Members of this House or of those with whom the final decision lies, the people of Northern Ireland. This House and, after this House has given a decision, still more, the people of Northern Ireland, are faced with a choice, a challenge and a great opportunity. It is a new start, a fresh start which is at their command. Let none of the people of this unhappy, war-torn, bewildered Province delude themselves when they have to take the decision we are presenting to them.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman but there is just one point I should like him to clarify. Why does he say that it is wrong for a minority in Northern Ireland to hold the balance here at Westminster when at the same time he appears to argue that a minority in Northern Ireland should have a right of veto in the Parliament of Northern Ireland?

Mr Wilson: I was not referring to a right of veto in the Parliament of


Northern Ireland. We hope that the result of the Assembly elections will be to provide a viable Assembly. That will be the case if no hon. Member in this House or in Northern Ireland speaks of being elected to the Assembly only to wreck its proceedings.
I have consistently rejected the seductive arguments of those who say that we should pull the troops out and leave the Irish of all factions to cut one another's throats. A withdrawal, a denial of adequate security provision, as I have repeatedly said, could lead to a bloodbath, a massacre, which would make St. Bartholomew's Eve look like a vicarage tea party, and the victims, in all probability, would not necessarily be of the same faith as the victims of St. Bartholomew's Eve. But those who are determined to base their response to this White Paper on the dictates of short-term political advantage or on ancient and now totally irrelevant historical allegiance must realise that there is a growing feeling on this side of the water —a feeling that in my view must not command our vote tonight—that we cannot indefinitely commit the security forces to the task they have fulfilled with such courage and devotion over these years.
Last December I referred to the growing impatience of the British public, faced with a situation in which the writ of law and order increasingly ceased to run, a situation
in which British troops are … caught in a cross-fire which British public opinion is increasingly regarding as intolerable.
The public opinion it is our duty to represent in this House will not tolerate for long the continuance either of terrorism or a spate of bilateral sectarian assassinations.
Her Majesty's Government have at long last injected into the situation the basis for a political solution. Those whom we represent in this House will be disposed to show little patience for any who seek to impose on the Government, or on this House, a cross-fire of political manoeuvring. Still less would they be prepared to tolerate recourse to violence which could inflict on the Armed Forces what I have referred to as a 
cross-fire of murder and assassination".
Two successive Governments, two successive Parliaments, perhaps more, have earned the right to insist that the people

of Northern Ireland, in the freedom of democratic choice through the ballot-box, should now decide this issue against a background fairly set out and clearly stated on the first page of the White Paper where the Government, speaking for all of us, say something which has not been picked up much in the discussions on the White Paper:
As long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament must be acknowledged, and due provision made for the Uniled Kingdom Government to have an effective and continuing voice in Northern Ireland's affairs, commensurate with the commitment of financial, economic and military resources in the Province.
It is the claim that I urged more than 18 months ago, that, whether in fiscal terms or the provision of a military contribution to security, the Imperial Parliament and those we represent cannot long be asked to shoulder a burden of taxation without representation. The stake that we have earned and now seek to turn into reality is the demand that with this White Paper the people of Northern Ireland now, by free and democratic vote, shoulder the decision which is rightly theirs. It is their right, and it is equally their duty. For in military terms alone, the Forces of the Crown have done their duty, beyond any ordinary call of duty, and in conditions in which no other force has been trained to operate or called to operate—with wives and families similarly asked to share anxieties beyond any ordinary call.
With the approval of the White Paper tonight, the decision is increasingly transferred from the sentry post, the street patrol, the Saracen, the control point, the road-block, to the ballot-box.
The Government have responded, as I have said, overlate to our demand that military containment must give way to a political solution. But from today, the responsibility for Westminster's political solution becoming a reality passes from this House over the water to Northern Ireland itself. Whether there is after tonight a political solution depends on one thing—the response of the people of Northern Ireland.
I said a few moments ago that this was a challenge, an opportunity. The people of Northern Ireland, who have walked in darkness, are now bathed in at least the prospect of light. With this


White Paper, they now have the chance, forswearing private ambition, sectarian ambition and every partial affection, to express in the secrecy of the ballot their own desires for the future of their country.
When they do so, with the heart-felt concern and prayers of all of us in this House and those we represent, let them recognise that not only is this for them their opportunity. It may be more than that. It may be their last.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1973.
2. Fire Precautions (Loans) Act 1973.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (WHITE PAPER)

Question again proposed.

4.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I start by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for his generous personal remarks. He perfectly fairly continued to put forward various arguments and said that I may in the past year have made some mistakes. If there is any man who has ever dealt with the affairs of Northern Ireland or any part of Ireland who can say after a year that he had not made mistakes, he is a brave man, and I am certainly not that man.
I recognise at once that there may well have been mistakes—mistakes of timing and action. When important decisions come in as fast as they do, one would not be human if one did not make mistakes from time to time. I do not in any way resent that comment. I seek only to learn from the mistakes that I may have made and that others may have made in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman said that with the passing of this White Paper the response will be with the people of Northern Ireland. With that I agree, and I put one further point which I believe would be accepted by a large number of people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We in this House have also a clear responsibility to give a lead.
There may be those in this House who do not like the White Paper; there may be those who believe it will not work; there may be those who are determined for one reason or another to oppose it. Very well. That is their decision. But I believe that the people in this country and in Northern Ireland are entitled to say to those who think that the White Paper is wrong or who are determined to vote against it that it should be given a chance to work by the people in Northern Ireland who have to work it. I hope that those who oppose the White Paper will do nothing to discourage those who seek to work the White Paper. If they were to do that a heavy responsibility would rest upon their shoulders.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to some of the detailed comments that have been made during the debate and will speak on the issues for which he bears responsibility.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined the basic background of the White Paper. In seeking to respond to the various trends that have developed in the debate so far, I shall naturally do so from the background of close firsthand experience in Northern Ireland during the past year.
Inevitably, some issues and some horrors loom much larger—perhaps sometimes too large—in one's mind if one has had to live very close to them. One's judgment of the broad scene can be impaired as a result. That is particularly true of Northern Ireland, where things often appear very different on the spot from the way they appear when viewed from Westminster or, indeed, on a television screen. Although my experience has left some indelible impressions and some very firm views in my mind, I welcome the opportunity of this debate to test them in the House. It is of importance that in this debate we should be able to stand somewhat further back from the scene.
It is clear from yesterday's debate that I should deal first with our major priority, which is the whole problem of violence. There was a reference in the House yesterday to the morale of the security forces, and I want to underline what my right hon. Friend said. Despite the extremely difficult conditions under which our troops operate, the state of their morale is very high because at present they are succeeding, and nothing succeeds like success.
The month of March, with two days to go, has been the most successful month ever in the campaign against terrorist crimes. In the last week alone, the Chief Constable has reported that 47 people have been charged. Of those charges, 24 were for firearms offences, 13 for explosives offences, one for murder, three for conspiracy to murder and six for armed robbery. That is in one week. For the month of March so far the total number of people charged is 158, and that brings the total since the beginning of the year to 409.
The courts have been handing out the most severe penalties to those who are pursuing violence. In Belfast courts so far this year 156 people have been sentenced to a total of 725 years' imprisonment, plus two life sentences and one death sentence. In the winter Assizes 13 people received sentences totalling 67½ years. In the City Commission 23 people have been sentenced to 136½ years. In the High Court four people were sentenced to 29 years.
These detailed statistics are important because they prove conclusively that the security forces are hitting the terrorists very hard. They need to be given, because often in the past the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army have felt that insufficient recognition is given to their successes. Although I do not think the media present these facts on this side of the water with as much prominence as they might, though there are welcome signs of improvement, the facts are certainly getting through to the people of Northern Ireland. More and more people there are getting the message that violence is not paying off and that the chances of getting caught are now considerably greater. There is no greater deterrent to crime than the fear of being caught.
I should like to pay very special tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army for all they are doing in this regard. It should also be said at this time—it is often said in troubles of this sort, whether of war or something approaching war as we now have—that relations between the civil power and the military and security forces can sometimes be difficult. I can only say that my own personal relationships with the two GOC's and with the Chief Constable have been first class. I am most grateful to them and sincerely hope that they would reciprocate that our relations have been very good in that time.
There are those in the House who think that the Army or the police should take further action. We are only too ready to consider any constructive proposals put forward by people who have been on the spot and to see whether further action can be taken. But let no one doubt that the problem of dealing with guerrilla forces in heavily populated areas is an extremely difficult one, as security forces all over the world have very well recognised.
The reason for the successes of our forces recently has been the increased co-operation and support for them from all parts of the community. This was becoming apparent before the publication of the White Paper, but has been most marked since that event.
It is too early yet to say for certain that the battle for public support is won, but the use of the confidential telephone is indeed most impressive and that must be an indicator. The Chief Constable tells me that the March figure for calls received is running at the rate of 15 a day. Yesterday there was a record for a 24-hour period of 100 calls. So far the March total is over 400.
The public desire to co-operate in detecting those responsible for the appalling, savage and inhuman murder of the three sergeants which has been condemned on both sides of the House has been most marked. Over 2,500 direct telephone calls have been received by the police working on this case. The material received is being sifted most urgently.
At this stage I should also like to recognise the considerable help we have had from the security forces in the


Republic. In particular, I am sure the whole House will welcome the successful action of the authorities in the Republic last night in intercepting a very substantial quantity of arms which was being shipped into their country.
Further to combat terrorism, the Government hope within the next few Jays to publish a Bill which will deal with the recommendations of the Diplock Commission and repeal the Special Powers Act, re-enacting only those provisions in it which in the Government's view are essential. The intention is that such proposals will be in force only during an emergency and that this will be a matter for this House.
I regard the provisions of the Diplock Commission as complementary to the other proposals in the White Paper dealing with human rights. The Diplock Commission itself drew attention to the problems in Northern Ireland of preserving the rule of law. While there is intimidation and violence, the courts are in very real difficulty in dealing with terrorism. While there is terrorism, the normal freedom of the individual under the law is inevitably denied.
It is a sad fact that it is necessary for the time being to retain in the proposed legislation those provisions of the Detention of Terrorists Order which provide for extra-judicial processes. But the underlying intention of the recommendations of the Diplock Commission is to provide means by which more people could be brought before the normal courts of law rather than dealt with by extra-judicial processes. This, I am sure the House will agree, is a move in the right direction. But it would be a mistake to assume that procedural improvements of the kind proposed in the Diplock Commission will by themselves be sufficient to deal with terrorism.
There remain those people who intimidate and who kill, and, as the Diplock Commission itself says, so long as this is so, detention procedures are unavoidable.
The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) asked about the sectarian breakdown of detainees.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is still on the Diplock Report, first, would he confirm that the

orders that may be necessary under the Diplock legislation will be subject to affirmative resolution in this House?
Second, would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend yesterday? If, as we understand it, Diplock is coming in the earliest of the Bills before us and the human rights are to be enshrined in the second and major constitutional Bill, would it not be right, even if that is to be so, that at the time when he publishes the Dip-lock Bill he should publish the text of what he intends in respect of human rights so that we can look at the two together?
There will be anxieties about Diplock, and very deep ones. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman knows that. It would be very good if we could see the other side of the matter in the shape of what will be done to give effect to the human rights declaration.

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point is "Yes". They will be affirmative orders.
As to the second point, I am afraid I do not think that it would be possible to do that completely, but I note the point and I will see in what way we might be able to help in that procedure.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster asked about the sectarian breakdown of detainees, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that I would deal with this point. The position is that a total of 389 people either have been detained by the Commissioners or are at present held on interim custody orders awaiting hearings. Of these, 367 are Catholics and 22 are Protestants. One hundred and four people have been released by the Commissioners and five on appeal from the Commissioners. Sixty-three of those released were formerly in internment, 31 were in detention and 15 were subject to interim custody.
These figures show clearly the extent to which the Detention of Terrorists Order operates completely independently of the Executive and of Ministers. I can only repeat to the House that, having had this particular responsibility over the year, I am utterly convinced that the Detention of Terrorists Order, which I believe is essential in the present circumstances, is
 


an instrument removed from the executive and therefore quite different in kind from what internment was in the past.
Several hon. Members during the debate have raised the question whether persons holding Republican views or being members of Sinn Fein or Republican clubs can stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although this appears to be a question about electoral law, it is really about something much wider. As to electoral law, anyone can stand for election, whatever view he or she may hold. There is nothing in electoral law to prevent an individual belonging to a proscribed organisation standing for election as a representative of that organisation. But frankly, left in that way, that would be a misleading answer. The fact that a person is so standing gives him no immunity from the criminal law, and that is the important point.
Her Majesty's Government will certainly consider most carefully the views put forward in the debate, but I must repeat what is said quite categorically in the White Paper—that no person or organisation can expect to be allowed to claim to be acting politically at one moment and then, given what appears a favourable opportunity, to turn to violence and subversion at the next.
The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the debate have raised the question of early elections.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I come back to the question of proscription in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman raised it? If it is the case— and of course the right hon. Gentleman is speaking with advice—that it would be possible for anybody to stand but that he or she would be subject to the criminal law, what, then, is the point of proscription under the Special Powers Act or any other existing legislation?

Mr. Whitelaw: In other matters than standing for election, proscription can be, and of course is, applied in the South to certain aspects of Republican activity and in the North it applies to the law relating to elections. I would not wish to go further at this stage because, as I have said, I will consider most carefully the views put forward in the debate.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I realise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but surely the point is that on the ballot paper will appear the name of the candidate's party or organisation. I understand that any individual can stand, but will the right hon. Gentleman say that if a candidate supports, for example, the Provisional Sinn Fein, the Republican Club, the Provisional UVF, or whatever in his political approach to problems, that fact will appear on the ballot paper?

Mr. Whitelaw: There will be opportunities to argue this on the whole basis of proscription and whether a particular organisation should be proscribed. I should like to go into these matters and come back to the House with a more complete answer, because they are detailed and complex issues.

Mr. Frank McManus: On another point closely connected with this, am I right in thinking that the local government elections, if and when they take place this spring, will preclude persons who have recorded against them a sentence of three months or more? I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and myself. Is it a fact that all three of us, should we wish to stand, are precluded by regulation from so doing?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should have to look into that, but I do not think it is so. If it were so I should find it difficult to stop the two hon. Gentlemen concerned from standing if they so desired. I shall certainly look into the matter.
Perhaps I may now turn to the demands from all sides of the House for early elections. As the exchange between the hon. Member for Leeds, South and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday showed, there was a clear request for elections in June. It is only right that I should spell out very clearly what are the practical implications of such a decision from the administrative point of view. I owe that to the House.
First, if this course is to be taken two Bills will be needed. The constitutional Bill dealing with the legislative proposals must inevitably be a long and complicated measure. It is vital to get it right


and therefore to avoid the ambiguities and difficulties which arose between Stormont and Westminster in the past.
The Bill will need to be very carefully drafted and very carefully scrutinised in the House. This inevitably takes time. It will be produced as soon as possible, and, even though it will need careful scrutiny by this House, I hope that it will make speedy and substantial progress. But it will certainly not make its way through Parliament to allow the organisation of elections in June.
The only way to provide for this— and bearing in mind the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition perhaps I should say that, although it is not the only way, I think it is probably the best way—is to have a Bill dealing solely with elections, which should come first. If this were not the right way, I should certainly look at the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
Such a Bill would need to pass all stages in both Houses by the end of the second week of May to permit the elections to be held by the end of June. I can undertake that such a Bill will be presented to the House very soon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] If this is done it will be essential—and I emphasise that word— that the main constitutional Bill, on which the whole procedures of the Assembly will depend, should have made substantial progress through the House by the time the elections are held, so that the basis on which the Assembly will work will be clearly understood by those concerned.
There have been many suggestions that it would be wise to postpone the local government elections planned for 30th May on the ground that these elections will be fought not on local issues but on the substance of the White Paper. I must warn the House of the grave consequences of such a postponement. I do not regard the question of going back on my word as of any consequence. If it were right to do so, I should be prepared so to do. However, there are other grave and important consequences.
If we hold the Assembly elections in June it would still be possible to proceed with the local government elections on 30th May. These elections have

already been postponed several times and the truth must be faced that local government in Ireland is running down very fast. The district councils and the area boards must be made to work properly. My hon. Friends and myself have appointed members to these area boards but we now need on the boards those who are to be nominated by the district councils when elected. Until this happens none of these boards can work effectively.
There was very widespread support in this House for the Macrory local government reforms when they were introduced. They have still not started to work in Northern Ireland because of the various postponements, and they cannot work until the elections are held. If the elections are not held on 30th May, the local councils cannot start in October. This would be a very serious postponement. I fear that if this were to happen there could be a considerable breakdown in local administration. I very much hope, therefore, that the House will accept that if the date for the Assembly elections is clearly fixed for the end of June, it would be reasonable to go forward with the local elections on the basis that these could be fought on local issues, bearing in mind that the Assembly elections would need to be on broader issues.
If it is argued that there is only a short time between the two elections, it must be pointed out that in the rest of the United Kingdom this sort of period frequently occurs between local elections and General Elections.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the right hon. Gentleman not see his way clear to compromise on this important point? All parties, in spite of their differences, feel that the Assembly elections should come first. Would it not be possible to bring them forward a little in June and hold local government elections afterwards? After all, the people elected to local government in Northern Ireland will not take up office until October.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think I can respond to the hon. Member immediately because, with the discussions about early elections and with the need to consult people in Northern Ireland, as I have been doing this morning, it would be


unreasonable for me to commit myself on all these matters before I had an opportunity to consult the people most closely concerned. But it would be a very serious matter to go back on the decision if it meant that the local councils were unable to start in October.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I take the point further? Of course the right hon. Gentleman had to announce these elections, but nobody would hold it against him if he said that they were not now to be held because at the time that he proposed the date, details of the Assembly elections and the White Paper were not known.
Practically every party I can think of in Northern Ireland is in favour of delay. If it is a fact that the members of the new local government districts who achieve appointments to the area boards will not take office until October, would it still not meet the case to provide in the timetable for the Assembly elections to be held in June and for the local government elections to be held in September? In no sense would it upset the right hon. Gentleman's quite proper concern to get people elected for the local government areas.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not as simple as that, but of course, if the House desires me to do so, I will look into it. It is not as simple because, once the councillors are elected, they have to go through the whole business of appointing their staffs before they can take office in October. The local authority organisations would be gravely upset from a staff point of view if such a postponement were made. This cannot be an overriding difficulty, but it is something which the House should know. I have had very strong representations from the local government staffing organisations that further delay would be very serious indeed.
One has to take all these matters into consideration, and I ask the House to take into consideration that the difficulties of running local government affairs have had very serious results. Whether it is impossible to have local government elections at the end of May on local issues when everyone knows that the Assembly elections will come in June, is something which I ask the House to consider very carefully, because I believe that it would

be possible if one had definitely planned Assembly elections for June. One must obviously consider the views of the House, but I feel very strongly about this.
I turn to the future position of the Secretary of State under the settlement, which is spelled out very clearly in paragraphs 48 to 50 of the White Paper. I do not wish to go into detail, but some anxieties have been expressed in Northern Ireland as to that position following the election of the Assembly and the formation of the Executive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred to colonial administration and so on.
In drafting the White Paper and the legislation it is our clear purpose that, while the Secretary of State will have his very proper responsibilities in matters of security and law and order, while he will have proper responsibilities as representing Northern Ireland interests and be responsible to this House, and indeed in the United Kingdom Cabinet, nevertheless it would be fatally wrong if he were to become enmeshed in matters which had been transferred to the Executive and which were properly matters for the Executive in Northern Ireland.
Of course he would have duties concerning discrimination and any impingement on subjects reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. With those two reservations, he should be able to leave to the Executive the job of carrying out its functions and not get in the way. If he gets in the way the whole system will not work. There will be a great responsibility on the Secretary of State to retreat from the position which inevitably I have occupied through the period of direct rule. I believe that to be very important. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will accept it from me that that is the right way of proceeding.
There has been some misapprehension about the taking of oaths in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) expressed anxiety lest a continuing requirement to take an oath after election might deter some people from standing for election to the Assembly.


Paragraph 52 of the White Paper makes plain that
Members of the executive will be required to take an appropriate form of official oath.
It says that the Assembly will be precluded in any of its measures from imposing on members of an appointed body the making of an oath or a declaration as a condition of appointment for employment, except where such an oath or declaration is required in comparable circumstances in the United Kingdom. It may not have been wholly clear—in which case let me make it clear now—that there is no intention of requiring the members of the Assembly as such to take an oath on taking their seats.
As to the suggestion that there should be added representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster, I can add little to what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). As he pointed out, the proposed constitutional settlement will provide Northern Ireland with unique institutions of its own, exercising extensive governmental powers and with a real measure of financial independence. It is just not possible to sustain for one moment the argument that in some way Northern Ireland is to have a lower status than other parts of the United Kingdom. Further, there is the possibility that in due course more powers will be devolved.
If we were now to decide to increase the number of Members from Northern Ireland at Westminster, that would imply that there should be a limit to the extent of devolution. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford pointed out, it could suggest that for all time the powers of the new Assembly would be limited to what is in the White Paper and that nothing further would be devolved. I cannot think that that is right at this time, and it constitutes a powerful argument against added Westminster representation.

Mr. McMaster: What about the matters reserved to the imperial Parliament? Is it not right that on such vital matters as taxation and foreign affairs representatives from Northern Ireland should have an equal voice with citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is clear that, quite contrary to the position in England,

Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland, under these proposals, would have very extensive devolved legislative and administrative powers in the very important spheres of regional employment, education, health and agriculture which are not devolved to any other part of the United Kingdom in the same way. That makes a very powerful difference between the position of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
On the question of power sharing, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the possibility of separate negotiations. I have made it perfectly clear to all the parties—I think the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows this—that of course I am prepared to explain as best I can various points in the White Paper to the parties, but that I must also make perfectly clear that the limits, for example on power sharing, laid down in the White Paper within which the Secretary of State could devolve powers to an Executive and the limits within which an Executive could be formed, are absolutely clear and must be kept absolutely firm. There cannot be room for negotiation on these issues on which we are absolutely firm in the White Paper.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would it not then be right to say that no leader of any party has any right to demand negotiation on his policies and to say that he can change the basis of the White Paper, as has been done by the Unionist Party?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think all leaders of all the parties have an absolute right to say whatever they like.
Perhaps that would be an appropriate moment to seek to end what I have to say because I know that a very large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that I have dealt with the main trends in the debate. I have done so in some detail because that was necessary on some of the issues which were raised yesterday, such as the question of early elections.
Perhaps I might leave the House with the thought which is uppermost in my mind after one year in Northern Ireland. It is something which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said to me when first I went there. It is that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are both kind-hearted and generous. Like the rest of


their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom, they wish only to live their lives in peace with their families. They are proud. They are determined. Quite rightly, they have no intention of being led in the long run by anyone who is, as they say, "from across the water". They want leaders of their own. They need them. They must have them.
We in this House can provide Northern Ireland only with a framework. Only Ulstermen can make it work. Political leaders will have to exercise patience and understanding if they are to work together successfully. As I have learned to my cost in the past year, destructive criticism will always be the easiest course and constructive leadership the most difficult. But there can be no doubt that those leaders in Northern Ireland who make up their minds to work together for the benefit of their country can do it. I am optimistic enough to believe that they will. I know that the broad mass of the people in Northern Ireland want them to do so, and I am convinced that the proposals in the White Paper give them a real opportunity.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: First, let me congratulate the Secretary of State on having listened to some of the arguments advanced here yesterday and on having conceded to some of the views that we heard put forward. However, I hope that, on further reflection and having listened to further argument and debate in this House, especially when we consider the proposed legislation on the Floor of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to granting the requests which have been made that the elections for the Assembly should take place before the local government elections. This is a matter of major importance. It is we, the elected representatives from Northern Ireland who will have to fight those elections. It is we who will have to go out into the constituencies explaining what is necessary in local government and explaining our various attitudes to the White Paper. If we are prepared to accept that responsibility in fighting the Assembly elections first, at least that concession should be made by the Secretary of State.
In listening to the speeches which were made yesterday and will be made today

putting forward various attitudes to the White Paper, I have had to ask myself one simple question: what is the alternative to the partial acceptance of this White Paper in trying to make it work, in trying to make it the basis for bringing real politics into play in Northern Ireland again? It was a very easy answer for me to give. It is an answer which I am certain will be given by the large majority of my constituents and others in Northern Ireland.
The answer to the rejection of this White Paper either here or in Northern Ireland would be a continuation of the violence and bloodshed and the heartbreak and despair that we have had to suffer through the nightmare of these past four years in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone with a spark of humanity and compassion, irrespective of his political ideals or political ambitions, could in any way say or do anything which would prolong this agony for one minute longer than necessary.
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) gave us a clear, cold analysis of what violence has meant and how it has been perpetuated in the streets of villages and towns in Northern Ireland. If I were the representative of an English, Scottish or Welsh constituency, I should find it very hard to understand in depth just what she was trying to tell the House. It is only by living in a situation where violence is present for 24 hours of the day that one can understand how terrible it is.
I stand here today as the representative of West Belfast. I have seen the blood of Scottish, English and Welsh soldiers and of my own constituents on the New Lodge Road and on the Falls Road staining the streets of Northern Ireland. I should not like any other representative in this House to have to undergo that experience.
A few weeks ago at seven o'clock in the morning my wife went in the dark to a newspaper shop in an adjoining street. On her way she walked through a pool of blood where a young boy had been assassinated within 50 yards of my own home. I have seen the killings brought about by people referred to here as terrorists but whom people in Northern Ireland refer to as patriots.
In our approach to this problem to try to bring to an end to this awful violence, a great responsibility rests upon us in the attitudes that we adopt during this debate. I have never supported violence. I do not believe that violence has ever achieved or will ever achieve any political ends in Northern Ireland. I have made my position clear, and at some considerable political sacrifice. I do not support anyone in Northern Ireland who uses the bomb or the bullet to achieve political ends. In saying that, I am being honest. I would rather not be a Member of this House or of any other House—or, for that matter, of the new Assembly in Northern Ireland—if I felt obliged to attempt to solicit the support of anyone who had been using violence or who believed in the efficacy of violence to achieve political ends.
Over the past two or three months, over the past two or three weeks especially, the Irish people themselves have been absolutely appalled and horrified at some of the most brutal and vicious crimes that have ever occurred throughout the whole troubled history of Ireland. In a conventional war such as that which this country had to fight between 1939 and 1945 against the Axis Powers, German planes could come over London and drop their bombs on enemy territory and British planes could do the same over Germany. At the Battle of El Alamein guns could open up on enemy fortresses and concentrations. But the people engaged in those actions did not know the individuals whom they were killing. A height of 30,000 feet separated the planes and their targets of Hamburg or London.
The same is not true now in Ireland. The man who stands and fires a rifle at a young soldier taking children across a pedestrian crossing in the Ardoyne can go home that evening and listen to the soldier's name and address, marital status, the number of children he had and whether he was the son of a widowed mother. He can see it on television and read about it in the next morning's papers and know for the rest of his days that he was responsible for bringing that young soldier's life to an end. The man who places a bomb in Belfast will know to his dying day the names and addresses and the sexes of those whom he has killed. The people who carried out the

ghastly murders referred to yesterday in the most compassionate terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster— the brutal and cowardly murders of the three soldiers last week—know the names and addresses, the marital status and the religions—they happened to be Catholic —of those whom they murdered so foully.
There are many people in Ireland who are now beginning to question what has happened to the Irish people, and how, in bringing about the unity of Ireland in the name of patriotism, they can sink to commit such foul deeds. I am certain that there must be many within the ranks of the Provisional IRA who now, after witnessing such callous acts, will begin to ask where such action has brought them and when it will end.
I cannot claim to echo the spokesmen of the Provisional IRA, but I can make an appeal. I ask it to desist from further actions of the type which have brought such misery to Northern Ireland. In making that request, I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who is so fond of standing in this House time and time again and blaming the IRA for every death that occurs in Northern Ireland, that it is politically dishonest to adopt that sort of action that he takes. Many deaths have been brought about by the activities of those who claim to support the Unionist Party. We have to think only of the horrible assassinations that have taken place over the last few months by Unionist extremists. We have only to think that no later than this afternoon not only were guns found on a ship coming into Waterford but a vast quantity of arms was found in East Belfast which was to be used, no doubt, against the Catholic minority population in Northern Ireland.
My condemnation of those using violence is a general condemnation. It is not specifically directed to the Provisional IRA or the Official IRA but to all of those who have been using arms and who have been trying to bring about their own political ambitions. It would be unfair of me if I did not say that the British Army has made some ghastly mistakes in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it was inevitable that in the situation that should happen. The Irish people will remember what happened on Bloody Sunday. The paratroopers who pulled the triggers of


their rifles and SLR's in Derry on that Sunday know the names and addresses of the people who were killed. That is why both the British Army and the Northern Ireland people are becoming so brutalised. That is why it is necessary, if we are to bring about an end to the violence, that the White Paper must be given a chance.
I do not accept everything which is in the White Paper. On reading it when it was first published, I received many disappointments. On the other hand, there are contained in it many of the proposals which were made by my hon. Friends in 1966, 1967 and 1968. Had they been implemented then, it may be that the violence which we now have in our society would not have arisen.
The White Paper is a paper for discussion. It is an attempt to try to get the political representatives of the Northern Ireland people to discuss with each other what type of society they want. I regard it as no more and no less. The elected representatives will be at the Assembly having been elected by the franchise of the Northern Ireland people. I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will not like the type of representatives who are elected. However, they will have to accept them because they will have been elected by the voice of the Northern Ireland people. The onus will be on those representatives to agree on the points on which it is possible for them to reach agreement. It will be up to those representatives to try to make the Assembly work in the interests of the Northern Ireland people.
I am rather suspicious—and the Secretary of State did not allay my suspicions this afternoon—about power sharing. I recognise that the White Paper makes it clear that the old Stormont, the Stor-mont of repression and oppression, has gone for ever. That one issue would make it impossible for me to vote against the White Paper. Things have changed in Northern Ireland and we shall never again have to live under such a jackboot régime.
I should not like to think that the chairmen and members of the Executive will be given posts purely and simply because they are either Catholic or Protestant. That could only further institu-

tionalise sectarianism in Northern Ireland. I want to see a form of Assembly, Government or Parliament, whatever it may be, in which there will be not only an Executive or a Government but an Opposition. If we are to try to create a new Assembly purely on the basis of sectarian attitudes—Catholics and Protestants—there will not be a real Opposition. The lack of a real Opposition is why we have had so much trouble in Northern Ireland. I want to see a real Opposition and a breakdown of sectarian politics. I want to see politics in Northern Ireland become what politics are here— namely a battle between Conservative and Labour Members, capitalism and socialism. I have no doubt that in the absence of a real Opposition I shall not be rushing into the Assembly asking for a chairmanship. I know what side I shall be on. I have always been on the side of the people.
I have no doubt that there will be many people elected by the minority who will be prepared to engage in power sharing and who will be prepared to use their energies to try to bring about a better society in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the Charter of Human Rights. It is a condemnation of all the Governments that have had office since 1920 and partition that in this year, 1973, we find it necessary to have to write into our legislation a charter of human rights. That is something which everyone in England, Scotland and Wales has had since the beginning of the century. But even when that charter is written into legislation, it will depend on the people who have been elected in Northern Ireland whether it can be made to be effective.
The border poll which recently took place in Northern Ireland proved to many people, among other things, that there was a majority—the result was 591,000 against 6,000—who wanted the retention of the link with Britain. I should have thought that that would ease the opposition from Unionist spokesmen against the White Paper proposals. However, far from that, we have seen an unholy alliance between the most extreme sections of the Unionist Party. That is not because they are afraid of the constitutional position or of being swallowed up in the Republic overnight but because they are afraid of losing the power, status and


privilege which they have had for so long.
The Secretary of State will be under increasing attacks from the coalition of interests which has been formed in an attempt to restore the Protestant ascendancy class which has dominated and ruled Northern Ireland for so long and which has brought with it such disaster.
Whilst I welcome the Charter of Human Rights, I feel that it will have to be spelt out much more clearly. It is stated in the White Paper that the Assembly when elected shall not be permitted to legislate in a discriminatory way. That sounds very well at face value. But it will be unnecessary to do so in the initial stages as there will still be the remnants of the old Stormont—for example, sections of the Special Powers Act and public order legislation which was deliberately promulgated and used by the Unionist Party against the minority. There will still be the Flags and Emblems Act. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be able to tell the House that that Act no longer had any place on the Statute Book of any so-called democracy. If that Act is allowed to remain on the Statute Book the Government are saying to the Unionist majority that it can use its flag—the Union Jack.
I know that in this country the Union Jack is not used as a party political symbol. It is in Northern Ireland. Symbols are important in Northern Ireland. If one section of the community is allowed to use a flag as its symbol, there is no reason why another section should be denied the same right. I would like to think that neither section would need to use flags as party political symbols, but that is not the reality of Northern Ireland.
The vast majority of my hon. Friends have asked the Secretary of State to allow the Provisional IRA or the Official IRA to take part in the forthcoming elections to the Assembly and the local authorities. This is a direct challenge which the Secretary of State must accept. I have never supported the violence of the Provisional IRA, but if the right hon. Gentleman maintains a ban on its political operations it will feel entitled to say that it was refused the means of engaging in the democratic process. Although I do not

agree with this, it will be said that that provided justification for carrying on the campaign of violence.
During the run-up to the border poll, the Secretary of State repeatedly slated that the poll was necessary to discover what the people of Northern Ireland thought about the retention of the link. How much more valid is the same argument now in another direction? How much more important is it to take away all restrictions, obstacles and impediments from the path of all political parties so that we may know what the people of Northern Ireland think? We want to know who the people want as their elected representatives. If the Secretary of State can use that argument about the border poll, he can use it now.
The Republicans will also have to face this challenge. If no restrictions were placed on them, they could engage in elections. They would have to accept the challenge. Then we would see how much support they had. If they refused to take part, we could say with a great deal of justification that they were unwilling to put their policies and programmes before the electors. There would be no more sympathy for them because it would be evident that they were trying to impose their will at the point of a gun. There is something to be gained by all those who believe in the democratic process. I believe that the Republicans would avail themselves of the opportunity to fight those elections. The Secretary of Slate must know that there have been Republicans in Ireland since 1798, since Wolf Tone. Whatever legislation may be promulgated here to prevent people from using their voices or influence, they will not go away overnight. They will have to be reckoned with in any solution that seeks to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
The provisions relating to an Ombudsman are vague. I recognise that people in this country can put a great deal of faith in the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner. However, there is a different background in Northern Ireland. It seems that the powers of that office will have to be extended rapidly. We have found, in the working of the Commissioner in this country, that there have not been the powers to investigate complaints with the degree of competence thought necessary.

Mr. Whitelaw: The powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland are in many cases more extensive than those of the Parliamentary Commissioner here. One of the problems of Northern Ireland is that not many complaints are submitted. If people want to make the point that there is inadequate complaints machinery, perhaps they will do so, but I must point out that complaints are not being submitted.

Mr. Fitt: I can quite understand that. It is like someone complaining to the Commissioner of the RUC about the activity of an individual policeman. I am glad that the Secretary of State is to set up an agency which will inquire into the "patterns of discrimination" as they have been labelled in Northern Ireland. It is hard to prove that a Catholic bus driver is less competent than a Protestant bus driver, but when one sees that out of 89 bus drivers employed by a local authority 84 are Protestants perhaps one begins to think that there might be a different structure with different tests.
The Secretary of State said that he had a first-class relationship with the Commissioner of the RUC, Mr. Shillington. I am not particularly concerned about what sort of relationship the right hon. Gentleman has with the Commissioner. I am more concerned about the sort of relationship which exists between the Commissioner and the people of Northern Ireland. The Government should make it clear that there will be a complete reorganisation or restructuring of the RUC. We cannot hope to have peace while the RUC exists in its present form.
I am not saying that every member of the RUC is a rogue, a rascal and a bigot. I know many members of the RUC who are decent men of integrity. What was said yesterday was that the incidents in which they were involved have brought about an atmosphere in which no one in the RUC can say. "I was not involved in those actions, therefore I am not to blame." The Government appointed Lord Hunt and Sir Arthur Young to look into the RUC. Lord Hunt made it clear that he was amazed and astounded that the RUC should have been allowed to operate in such a political manner over so many years.
Sir Arthur Young did his damnedest to try to reform the RUC. We remember

the infamous occasion when the RUC was proved beyond all possible doubt to have been engaged in an incident in Derry which led to the death of a man. After months of inquiry Sir Arthur Young issued his verdict. He said that he had found that there was a conspiracy of silence in the RUC aimed at protecting those involved. On 14th and 15th August in Belfast the RUC opened up with sub-machine guns and Brownings. On that occasion a young boy died in my constituency. There have been other major incidents in which the RUC have been involved. It is this which has led the minority population in Northern Ireland to refuse to accept the RUC as at present constituted.
I recognise that hon. Members opposite representing the Unionist cause say that whether the minority likes it or not, it will have the RUC. They say that they will force us to have it. They want, and think they can have, total victory. That is not so. Before any legislation is introduced I ask the Secretary of State to examine carefully what he plans to do with the police force in Northern Ireland.
So far as the economic position is concerned, most of my hon. Friends on this side have said that they had hoped that the Government would be more explicit over this most important issue. I recognise that the Government could not have set up the Council of Ireland overnight. I hope that, with the recommendation in the White Paper, this item will be treated with the urgency which it deserves. If a Council of Ireland is created I have no doubt that representatives from the North and South will be able to sit down together. There will be many areas of disagreement but we are not two races: we are all Irishmen living in that island.
If I were to be a member of this Council of Ireland, with my colleagues, I would probably have much more in common with other people who were representatives from the Republic. But we would all be there under the one banner that we were all Irishmen. That could only be for the good of Northern Ireland.
I have welcomed the civil rights and social justice legislation proposed in this White Paper. The Government have attempted to resolve some of the terrible differences which are endemic to Northern Ireland's society and to the relationship


between these islands. But I cannot support the White Paper, because it still contains—no matter how much the Secretary of State may apologise for it—provisions for internment and detention without trial. The White Paper retains some of the worst aspects of Northern Ireland legislation. It retains certain sections of the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act. Until we are confident that we can repeal these powers, take steps to cast them into the wastepaper basket of Irish history, we can never hope to bring about a stable society in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State referred last night to aid. I do not think that the economic aspects affecting Northern Ireland have been given the priority they deserve. The Minister of State will know that, in Northern Ireland, particularly in the minority ghetto areas where there has been high unemployment and bad housing, there is a great need for industrial development. In my constituency of West Belfast there are acres and acres of land available for industrial building. I do not think that the Secretary of State, or those who assist him in relation to Northern Ireland, can afford to maintain a doctrinaire Tory approach to economic development in the Province. Northern Ireland needs the sort of services which should not be hemmed in or guaranteed by the outlooks which prevail on this side of the Irish Sea.
Summing up my approach, I cannot support this White Paper because of its provisions relating to internment and detention. But I can support the fact that it goes a considerable way towards meeting the arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House since 1966 in relation to bringing about a society in which social justice is readily available to all the people. In those circumstances I intend to abstain from voting tonight.
I hope to have the opportunity to put down amendments when the proposed legislation comes before the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said yesterday, this is another stage in the legislation and the development which is taking place between these two islands. This is not the end of the story but I sincerely

hope that it will provide a basis to make politics work in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I would appeal to all those engaging in violence to Northern Ireland to desist forthwith.

5.35 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move the amendment, in my name, in line 2, at end add:
but regrets that the White Paper does not provide for adequate Parliamentary representation for the people of Northern Ireland".
I would first of all endorse what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said about the need for eschewing violence in anything we do. It is good to have it on record from both sides of the political fence that we do not believe violent methods are the right methods to use to achieve any political end.
It would be easy to think of this occasion as another landmark or as another critical stage in the story of the troubles of Ulster over the last three-and-a-half years. It is not, in fact, so critical as some of the things through which we have been and some of the occasions we have had to face. The next real critical day will come when the Assembly is elected.
The first day after the electoral battles have been fought and the people meet will be the moment when leadership will be needed and the moment of real critical decision. We are not in a critical situation at present because what we do in this House today is a foregone conclusion. The two major parties in the House are agreed on the matter and probably have behind them the great weight of public opinion in Britain.
It is important that it should be understood, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, that the issue should not be fudged and that the aims of the White Paper should be clearly understood. It was interesting to hear both the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointing out that the purpose of election to the Assembly is not to negotiate a form of constitution that will take effect thereafter, but rather to work within the framework laid down in the legislation which it is proposed to put before the House in the constitutional Bill. It is important that this should be clearly


understood by everyone in Ulster. It would not be honest for anyone to pretend otherwise.
On the eve of the publication of the White Paper—or rather, on the morrow of the referendum—I was impressed that the return to political activity had greatly improved the morale of the Ulster people. The activity leading up to the referendum and the result of the referendum, improved the morale of the Loyalists. I use the word "Loyalist" simply in this sense. I do not use the word "Unionist" because it implies a party label. Nor do I use the word "Protestant" because it is sectarian and implies that there are no Catholic Loyalists. There is a substantial part of the Catholic community which is Loyalist, just as there are also members of the Protestant community who are disloyal. Let us be plain about that.
There was a distinct rise in the morale of the Loyalist community during the referendum. This was for two reasons— first, political activity and second, united political activity.
I had a great concern to see that, if possible, we who represented Northern Ireland in this House could speak with a united voice behind us. Accordingly, I took to various methods of consultation, some more successful than others. The result of this, marrying together the blueprint of my party and what others had said to me, was to determine that there were at least four principles that I could discern to which the majority community in Ulster adhered.
First, they wanted to see in the White Paper a very clear undertaking that the defeat of the IRA was the first priority. That is plain in the White Paper and that undertaking, I concede, my right hon. Friend has met.
Secondly, they wanted it made plain that the proposals within the Irish dimension, for the Council of Ireland, would be based very firmly upon the need for recognition of the constitutional position and upon consent. In the White Paper that again—though, one might argue, with qualification—has certainly been met.
They wanted also the ultimate control over internal security to be based in Ulster and to be the responsibility of Ulstermen.
Some of my hon. Friends may deal with that matter. I do not propose to do so at this stage.
But one thing was plain. Whether the Ulster people disagreed about whether they wanted full integration with full parliamentary representation in this House or a devolved Parliament of their own with very meaningful devolved powers, they did not want something which fell between the two.
In the debate on the Green Paper, i had already made this very point. I said:
There are really two broad propositions within the Union. The first is that one should see a Parliament and Government in Northern Ireland with powers which are broadly commensurate to those which the old Parliament and Government had, perhaps reformed as to membership and franchise … The other one is full integration, along the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his party, with more Members here at Westminster from Northern Ireland and a local Assembly … Either of those two propositions would be acceptable to the broad majority of the people of Northern Ireland … What would not be acceptable is a solution which is neither one nor the other. That would be a denial of democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 73.]
The major defect in the White Paper is that it precisely falls between the two. I propose to argue the case a little further.
Perhaps it might help the House if we look back at 1920. In 1920 this House, prior to the passage of the Act of 1920, had 105 Irish Members. I can see by the smile on the face of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that he recognises the immense relief which the House felt when that number was drastically reduced, as it was by the Act of 1920. But what one must remember is the context then. In 1920 we were setting up two Parliaments, one in the North and one in the South. It was envisaged that both those Parliaments would have a very large measure of self-government and a good deal of financial self-government as well.
The Parliament in the South did not come into being. Had it done so, it was proposed that there would be 33 Members from Southern Ireland, and there were to be 13 from Northern Ireland. The removal of the university seat reduced the Northern Ireland membership to 12. That continued to be justified on the grounds of the extent of the devolutionary powers.
The great change took place from about the end of the war onwards, when the control of the Treasury began to become stronger and stronger, because of the extent of Government expenditure. The vast increases in Government expenditure, the erection of the Welfare State, social services, the subsidy systems, all the regional development systems, and the general acceptance of the principle of parity in the social services and the linking of the re-insurance funds brought about a position in which, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) quite rightly described yesterday, in effect, Stormont devolution in financial respects was illusory. That is quite true. I concede that to the hon. Member.
The tragedy was that with that diminution of the devolutionary power, we did not proportionately increase the Northern Ireland membership in this House from about 1948 onwards. It ought to have been done then. There was no argument left for the placing of Northern Ireland in an inferior position in respect of representation in this House.
What we now want to look at is the question whether these proposals make any difference to that position.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that at the time of which he is talking, of the old Stormont before it was prorogued and before the Speaker's Rules were changed in this House, Ulster Members had the best of all worlds? They had a Parliament of their own. We could not raise questions there. Ulster Members could come here and talk on any subject, ranging from a Manchester Corporation-sponsored Private Member's Bill to foreign affairs. There was a gross imbalance in the situation.

Captain Orr: The situation was simply this: Ulster was taxed in precisely the same way as the hon. Gentleman's constituents were taxed, but Ulster was under-represented in having its say in that taxation or in control over how the money was spent, because expenditure of the money was in the control of the Treasury. That is the fundamental of the argument.
We want now to look at whether these proposals produce a greater measure of devolution. My right hon. Friend has suggested that they do. I would concede to him that if the devolution goes as he hopes that it will go, if it goes to the full extent one will get greater financial freedom within what one might call the block grant which Stormont will be allotted. In that sense there is a greater measure of devolution, but in another sense there is less. First, the block grant is to be decided now not according to certain rules, which it used to be decided upon by the Joint Exchequer Board. The block grant is now to be determined by the Secretary of State in his bargaining power in the Cabinet. The control over the Secretary of State is control here in this House. Once again, the control over expenditure is here, as the control over taxation is in this House.
Secondly, the extent of the financial freedom and the determining of financial priorities in Ulster is still in the hands of persons appointed not by the Assembly but by the Secretary of State. The effective power in every sense remains at Westminster.
Therefore, on grounds of equity Northern Ireland should be fairly represented in this House. We can decide according to several considerations what that representation should be. On the Scottish pattern it would mean 20 extra Members. On the United Kingdom basis it would mean 18. On the English pattern we would require four extra Members for Northern Ireland. This House has asked the leaders and people of Northern Ireland to make concessions and compromises, but the House is not itself prepared to make concessions on this point.
In using the term "parliamentary representation" in my amendment I mean, first, representation in this House or, failing that, a form of devolution which is meaningful. The White Paper does not provide for meaningful devolution because it is based primarily on an illusion. I concede to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and I have rarely had as much personal courtesy from anybody in Government as I have had from my right hon. Friend—and the Government that they sincerely believe that this is a reasonable document which should be accepted by reasonable men.


That is the view of the hon. Member for Leeds, South and I believe that he is sincere.
I am also willing to concede that the country at large probably regards the White Paper as a reasonable document which should be accepted by reasonable men. But it is a document which is defective because it is built primarily on an illusion. The illusion is that one can hold elections to an Assembly which the parties will fight on various grounds and with various differences between them and that they will then meet in this Assembly and agree to form an Executive to which power can be devolved. To me that simply does not make sense and is an absurdity. I only wish that it did make sense.
I willingly accept the appeal which was made by the Secretary of State today. If Parliament passes legislation on this White Paper, then that legislation will become the law of the land. I would never be a party to breaking the law of the land. I want to see people operating within the law of the land and I would not countenance any other attitude. But the House should not enact nonsense. People of good will will try to work the legislation should it become law.
I believe that we should have elections as soon as possible. I agree with the Opposition that we should proceed to the elections as fast as we possibly can so that we shall know the view of the Ulster people. I dislike playing the part of Cassandra. I am getting very tired of it and it sounds unconstructive and unreasonable. I believe that if these proposals do not work, the failure will lie not at the door of the people of Ulster— because the people of Ulster are reasonable people and I believe that there is more good will on both sides of the fence in Ulster than anybody imagines; the proposals will fail because they have within themselves the seeds of their own failure.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that if the proposals fail, they will fail because they contain the seeds of their own destruction. That may be true, but it is also true that if they succeed they will do so because they will provide the first real chance since the establishment of

the Northern Ireland State for people to try to make the system work. The six counties, from their origin, were unstable in the way in which they were chosen and in the philosophy which imbued their establishment. The setting up of the Stor-mont Parliament was unstable. The surprising thing is not that the crisis came in 1969–70 but that it did not come earlier. Reasons, explanations and excuses can be advanced about why the crisis did not come earlier, but the surprising thing is that it did not come earlier.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the setting up of Stormont was not done by the people in Northern Ireland but by people in this House and that the mistake was made here? Let us not kid ourselves about this. The people of Northern Ireland did not want a separate Parliament, fought hard against it and accepted it only as a compromise.

Mr. McNamara: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. However, this is surely a dangerous argument for the hon. Gentleman to advance, particularly when he and his hon. Friends have argued so long about democracy in the Six Counties. If there had been democracy in the 32 counties, the Stormont Parliament would not have existed. If, way back in 1912, the Unionists had not resorted to the force of arms and the threat of force in defiance of the sovereign Parliament of Westminster—a Parliament in which they are now asking for increased representation—we should not now be hearing this sorry story. I am sorry to say that but the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) raised the matter. I thought I should reply to him. However, I want to try to look for hopeful things contained in the White Paper.
One reason why I cannot support the amendment lies in its application to taxation and representation. If we were to accept the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, we in Westminster should have greater representation if the matter were to be looked at purely in terms of taxation because we raise a greater sum for the national Exchequer than do the people of Northern Ireland per capita. Therefore, we should be entitled to ask for further representation. However, I do not put this forward as an argument.
Furthermore, I do not accept the case for increased representation for another reason. In the past although Ulster Unionist Members have been able to ask questions about the number of houses in my constituency, I have not been able to ask questions about Northern Ireland housing matters because of devolution of power. One interesting argument that will arise from the provisions of the White Paper deals with the extent to which we shall be able to ask questions about the use of devolved powers once they are granted to the Assembly.
My hon. Friends have spoken about the need for early Assembly elections. It seems to me that the argument advanced from the Conservative Front Benches about the reason the White Paper could not come before the border poll is exactly the reason why we should have the Assembly elections before the local government elections, despite all the difficulties. We were told that the border poll would settle one particular issue and that we need not have the White Paper beforehand to cloud the issue. Now we have the White Paper it is bound to cloud the issue for local government elections.
We must therefore urge the Government very seriously, despite all the arguments which have been deployed, to make sure that we have the Assembly elections before the local government elections. This is the point which nearly everybody in the House is prepared to accept, with the exception at the moment, as I understand it, of the Government, who can see the administrative problems. I realise that they are there, but in this case I think the Government will have to think again. After all, we have been waiting three years for Macrory. Another three months will not make much difference if it means having satisfactory elections.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I undertake to look into it, but I hope he will understand the tremendously strong feelings of all the staff associations concerned, which feel very bitterly and deeply about this.

Mr. McNamara: I accept that from the right hon. Gentleman. I had said just before he came into the Chamber that I understood all of the administra-

tive problems and difficulties involved. Nevertheless, I hope he will try to do what he can.
I want to talk briefly about the Flags and Emblems Act, because I am not exactly sure what is the situation. I originally tabled a Question for answer last Friday to the Secretary of State and I did not get an answer until late yesterday afternoon. I put to the Prime Minister yesterday what were the Government's intentions about the Flags and Emblems Act and was given the reply,
Perhaps we can wait until the legislation comes before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1322.]
But the answer I received from the Minister of State that day was,
There are no plans at present to repeal this Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 357.]
Does that mean that we are to wait for the legislation, when the Act will be repealed, or that I must wait for the legislation to try to get the Act repealed? This is of considerable importance because we are dealing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, with questions of symbols, and the Flags and Emblems Act is a particular symbol of discrimination and is regarded as such by people in Northern Ireland who are republican.
I do not feel, as many people do, that it is a weakness of the White Paper that part of the problem of power sharing and the rÔle of the Executive is vague. To me it is one of its strongest points that the Secretary of State is saying to people in Northern Ireland, "Come together and try to work it out yourselves. Come together and settle your own procedures. Come together and try to work out your solution to the problems in Northern Ireland." Far from being a weakness, this, I feel, is a strength because it is putting responsibility, once the elections have taken place, upon the people who will have to try to work the system.
I urge again that when we have the elections the representatives of the extremists groups should be allowed to stand for election, and that the proscriptions contained in the Special Powers Act should go, because if they go the extremists, wherever they come from, will not be able to say that they have not had an opportunity to use the ballot box and therefore have had to have recourse to


the bullet. If the fear is that these extremists have the support of elements in the population strong enough to give them representation, at least we shall be aware of the degree of strength they have and will have a better idea of the nature of the problem.
While we do not know their exact strength—to what extent they have popular support, to what extent their support rests upon fear and intimidation, and to what extent some of them are just gun-happy hooligans—we are working in a complete void. It is better that they be allowed to stand and be beaten resoundingly, I hope, at the polls; or, if they get representation, that we should know it Far better that than that we give them an excuse to say that they were never considered, or allowed to have their say. If that were so there would always be people who would say that perhaps we drew our parameters of democracy too narrowly; that they were denied the right to have their say in a democratic manner; that they had been frustrated and pushed back. We must ensure that that does not happen. Then the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, to whichever community they belong, will be able to say that the extremists had had their chance and were either accepted or re-ected. Do not, for God's sake, give them the chance to say that they never had a chance of acceptance or rejection.
I turn to those parts of the White Paper which I regard as being particularly weak, not in a destructive sense, because there is so much in the White Paper with which I agree—so very much for which I have asked and urged, when my party was in Government and now, in opposition—that it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that there is a lot in it which I like. If I turn to the weaknesses I trust that the House and the Secretary of State will understand that my reasons for doing so are that these are weaknesses that I fear could make the proposals fail, and I do not want them to fail.
The first and major respect in which the White Paper fails is the question of the police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Paragraph 70, dealing with the police, makes a valiant but weak attempt to recognise that there really is a problem of the acceptability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in many parts of Northern Ireland. That it is seen as a sectarian

force, a force of bigots, the armed extension of a political organisation, by people in Northern Ireland is not in any way to denigrate the heroism and gallantry which many policemen have shown in this tremendously troubled period. It is only to state a fact—that it is regarded in that way.
It is because the White Paper fails to tackle this problem that I have a real doubt about its success. If we consider the history of the past three or four years we see that it was with the police that the troubles started; there was a feeling that they were acting partially against civil rights marchers; a feeling that they were facing only one side when trying to separate riot mobs; an overall feeling that they were being used purely and simply as an extension of the arm of the Unionist Party. To achieve acceptability of the RUC by the whole of the community in Northern Ireland is not going to be just a major task; it will be a well-nigh impossible task.
Therefore hon. Members must cast around in their minds for the best method of trying to establish a police force acceptable in all the areas of Northern Ireland. I think that the only way in which that can be achieved is by not just a radical reorganisation of the force but a reorganisation based upon getting away completely from the heavily centralised organisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The White Paper talks about the equivalent of local watch committees— local authority organisations—trying to come into a relationship with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is attempting to deal with the problem, but I do not think it goes to the root of the matter. There must be local police forces, and a complete acceptance of the police force by all the people. That can be achieved only if we get away from the present organisation and structure of the police.
It is regrettable that the events which have taken place in Northern Ireland since the Hunt Committee reported have made it appear that the reforms which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) sought to introduce have gone by the board. But he tried. We must completely reorganise the police force, so that there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that the


police are a body which will protect the ordinary law-abiding citizen of whatever community in whatever circumstances.

Mr. Maginnis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when Stormont was established one-third of the places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary were left open for the Roman Catholic community? Is he now suggesting that we should have a sectarian division in the constabulary, with a Protestant police force for the Protestant community and a Roman Catholic police force for the Roman Catholic community?

Mr. McNamara: On the eve of the dis-bandment of the Northern Ireland Privy Council, I thank the hon. Member for casually throwing me a title to which I am not entitled.
Perhaps the biggest mistake made was to say that one-third of the strength of the police of the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be reserved for Roman Catholics—in other words, that there would be statutory Catholics in the force. I am certainly not suggesting two police forces in parallel—one for the "Prods" and the other for the "Tagues". I am asking for community police forces based on the older kind of police forces which we had in Great Britain before the massive reorganisation. It would mean local police forces.
I turn now to the Diplock recommendations and the Charter of Human Rights. It seems strange that at a time when the White Paper quite properly makes great play of the Charter of Human Rights the first piece of legislation we are to have is a derogation from those same human rights. It is a cockeyed way of proceeding. It is most regrettable that the House has never debated the Diplock recommendations.
Our freedom depends not only on the establishment by law of the facts but on the way in which those facts are arrived at. One of the greatest defences of our freedom is the procedures by which the facts are arrived at. The moment we weaken those procedures we weaken our liberties. Diplock proposes just that. He introduces some strange arguments and ideas.
For example, there is the new legal concept of inculpatory admission— presumably, Lord Diplock means confession, but did not want to use that word in case it had sectarian overtones. We find that inculpatory admissions which are short of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment are to be accepted. But how short does one have to fall in order for such a confession to be accepted? It is a vague sort of phrase. There is no definition. Again, what are the minimum standards? Is a confession to be allowed if it is obtained by inducement, by threat of violence, by solitary confinement, by reduced diet, or by psychological techniques which fall short of torture but involve the threat of physical violence? The onus of proof on the balance of probabilities is to be placed on the accused, not on the Crown.
These are all very serious defects. We are to retain internment without really examining the reason for having it, or considering the resentments caused by it. It was introduced on a discriminatory basis, even though, as we have learned today, there are statutory Protestants inside. The operation when originally introduced went far beyond what was needed. Because of that, it was sordid, full of errors and inefficient. It was counter-productive. It had a terrible effect on the minority and has made Long Kesh a training ground for guerrilla graduates. When it was introduced, there was no proper attempt to set up special procedures for the hearing of grievances on behalf of those wrongfully arrested. The conditions of Long Kesh still leave a lot to be desired.
These are problems we have to deal with. I do not deny that in the long run there may, regrettably, be occasions when people have to be interned without trial, but is it right to weaken the criminal law in Northern Ireland to such an extent as has been proposed in Diplock? Is it right that the courts should be brought into even more disrepute, particularly after we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the great number of convictions in the courts in Belfast in cases heard before juries? Diplock is very much at odds with the White Paper. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that before the Diplock


recommendations are introduced the Charter of Human Rights should be introduced to see at least what we are having derogation from.
There is a lot in the White Paper that I can support and have supported. I will not vote against it, although there are parts of it that I find not entirely satisfactory. I would certainly vote to have it rather than see it rejected by the House, and I would certainly vote against the amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).

6.17 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before I sit down, I will traverse some of the ground covered by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in the earlier part of his speech, but I want to refer first to the amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). In any context except that of Northern Ireland, it would seem incredible that such an amendment should need to be moved. We are, after all, in this White Paper proposing to establish an Assembly which, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State last night, will have approximately the same power of taxation as a local authority in Great Britain, and of which the power of supply, as we call it in this House, will be severely circumscribed—an Assembly of which, at any rate initially and foreseeably, the sphere of operation will be essentially the sphere of local government, though admittedly it will have subordinate powers of legislation not identical with those which can be sought by local authorities in this country.
In any situation other than this, the affront to the principle of representation on which this House itself is founded and constituted would be thought to be almost impossible. My hon. and gallant Friend would surely not have needed to speak or to move an amendment in order to establish that in such circumstances, our fellow citizens resident in the six counties of Northern Ireland were entitled to at any rate the same scale of representation in this House as any of their fellows on this side of the Irish Sea.
What then are the reasons given for so striking a deviation from the principle upon which this House itself is founded?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relied very largely upon the prospects for the future. He said he was anxious if parliamentary representation for Northern Ireland were increased, that this might be an obstacle to the subsequent enlargement, which he desired, of the powers of Ulster Assembly. If that is the best case that can be made, it is a very weak one indeed. There is no obvious difficulty, if and when further devolution takes place, about bringing in at the same time the corresponding adjustment—namely, that since greater authority would be given to the Assembly there, a less extensive representation would be required in this House. After all, if the two things—the status of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the representation of Northern Ireland in this House—belong together, as they clearly do, then, if the one is adjusted, so can the other be adjusted. We have certainly learned in this House in the last two or three years that there is nothing entrenched about the legislation governing Northern Ireland. What is done can afterwards be very quickly undone.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If I may take up that point, I happen to agree with the White Paper on this but if it were the case that the Government of the day— if I can put it in that hypothetical way— wished to alter the representation of any part of the United Kingdom, is not it understood at least that no alteration should be made in the representation in this House at least until after the election after next? Then there is the 10- to 15-year rule, under the Act of 1956, at the very least, even on the fortuity which the hon. Gentleman brought up from the Front Bench. Should not there therefore be no change until 1979?

Mr. Powell: I am aware of these rules which govern our procedures in adjusting the parliamentary representation in this House, particularly the parliamentary representation of Great Britain. But I say again: I simply cannot believe that, if there was to be a substantial constitutional change again, endowing the new Assembly with a large range of powers which would make unjustified the full representation of the residents of Northern Ireland here, it would be thought unreasonable or impracticable to adjust that representation accordingly. I would have thought the very legislation envisaged in


this White Paper, which makes profound constitutional changes in Northern Ireland at the very shortest notice, was evidence enough of that.
I want to come to what seems to me the much more significant and instructive reason that was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He said that such a change, such an adjustment, would be
wholly unacceptable to a substantial element in the population".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1326.]
of Northern Ireland. I want to ask: what is this substantial element in the population to which the full parliamentary representation of the people of Northern Ireland would be wholly unacceptable? Of course, I can understand that many people in Northern Ireland have taken no particular interest—they have learned not to do so over the past 50 years—in the proceedings in this House until recently or in their representation here. I could understand therefore if they did not attach prime importance to an improvement in their representation here. What I cannot believe is that any element in the population of Northern Ireland, which wishes to see the Six Counties remain as part of the United Kingdom, or even willingly envisages that they should so remain for the foreseeable future, would have any objection at all to an improvement of the representation of that part of the Kingdom in this Parliament.
So what lies behind the stubborn refusal of the Government to do what, on the face of it, is manifestly fair, that is, to accord at least parity of parliamentary representation to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland? There is here something very familiar and very significant. It is the desire to have things both ways at once, the desire to support incompatible opposites. It is the refusal to face, to admit and to act upon the fundamental reality of the politics of Northern Ireland, which is that there are two nations which contend for a single territory.
All the politics of Northern Ireland goes back to this fundamental division and clash: to which nation, to which state, is Northern Ireland to belong? The ambiguity, which we already trace in the matter raised by my hon. and gallant Friend's amendment, saturates the White Paper which is before the House. I want

to come to it straight away, and to what the Government themselves say is the central issue in it, the point, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely clear and absolutely fixed—as he repeated in reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the central element in this package is power sharing. The proposition is in paragraph 52:
… it is the view of the Government that the Executive itself can no longer be solely based upon any single party, if that party draws its support and its elected representation virtually entirely from only one section of a divided community".
Here is a proposition and a principle totally adverse to any conception of parliamentary or representative government with which we are familiar—the doctrine that in circumstances to be defined by another authority the majority, however large and however clear, shall not exercise the executive power. Since this is the centrepiece, we are bound to ask: what is the intention, what is the thought, behind an innovation so surprising and so paradoxical?
What is the nature of the minority with whom power is to be compulsorily shared by those who have been elected by a majority of their fellow citizens? Is it a minority which differs on domestic policy, which has stood on a different programme for health, welfare, industrial development, the social services? Well then, I say, not even a parish council could be conducted on the principle that after an election had been held on a series of different programmes, the execution and administration should be carried on not by those who had the majority but by some kind of coalition combining those who had been elected on not merely different but presumably opposing programmes.
Clearly, that cannot be. That, of course, is not the thought behind this striking central element in the proposals. The minority which the Government have in mind is not a minority which is committed for the foreseeable future to the administration of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom but a minority which is opposed to that—not necessarily opposed in any unlawful way, rather no doubt eschewing unlawful methods, but still a minority whose political object and whole political life is bound up with the intention that


Northern Ireland shall not be administered as part of the United Kingdom but in some other way, as part of some other state.
So we have here a contradiction—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South called it an absurdity, and such a contradiction is an absurdity— built into the proposals and made the centrepiece of them. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) at the end of a speech yesterday afternoon which contained what, if I may say so, was a brilliant dissection of this centre piece of the White Paper—I thought she exposed its inconsistencies and contradictions in a devastating way; [Laughter]—logic is the same, whatever intentions may be —found at the end of her speech a remarkably apt expression for what the Government are doing, a remarkably telling description of the future before us. She spoke of the Government being
prepared to waffle their way on until terrorism succeeds in separating"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol 853, c 1385.]
Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
There is the danger. There is the necessity for this centre piece of the proposals before the House to be brought out into the open, to be analysed and to be seen for the contradiction that it is; for in those words of the hon. Lady is expressed both the hope and the fear which the White Paper and the intent to implement it will create. There is the hope on the part of those who would wish Northern Ireland to be detached from the United Kingdom: here, they hope, is a yet further advance towards what they have in mind; here is a United Kingdom administration which is determined to oblige the majority in Northern Ireland to govern in combination with those whose objects are incompatible with their own. There is the corresponding fear on the part of the majority: somehow, they fear, after years of ambiguity and obscurity, of contradictory policies and double meanings—in short, of waffle —they will find that what they thought to be firmly held in the grasp of the majority has somehow been filched and taken from them.
I understand the temptations and the pressures under which hon. Members speak and vote in this debate. After

weary years—weariness on this side of the Irish Sea, but weariness how much greater elsewhere!—how strong is the temptation, whatever may be the proposal which comes before us, to give it a trial. The concluding words—though HANSARD did not catch them—of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) yesterday were "Give it a try". Let us give it a try, say hon. Members, and see if it will work. But we are not sent here to give things a try, to see if they will work. We are sent here to apply our judgment before the event. We are sent here to judge between what is likely to work and what is not likely to work, between what is absurd and what is rational. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says "Rubbish". Evidently he thinks he has been sent here to sign on the dotted line. If so, others or not. We are sent here to avoid, if possible, misfortune coming upon our fellow citizens by taking thought in advance, however difficult or unpopular it may be.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend referred to my speech. Does he appreciate that many of us believe that any course has great perils, and that many of us believe sincerely that these proposals have the best chance of operating? That is why I say, "Give them a try and let us see whether we can make them work".

Mr. Powell: I do not for a moment doubt—I could not imagine otherwise— that my hon. Friend has applied his mind as intensely as any other hon. Member to this very question, to search out what the future chances are. That I do not for a moment doubt; but I am saying that it is a washing of the hands and an abdication of responsibility for any hon. Member who is not satisfied of the practicability and the reasonable probability of these measures working to go with the crowd who will be forcing their way in hundreds through the entrances to the Aye Lobby tonight, murmuring as they do so, "Let us give it a try".
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the most solemn part of a solemn speech, reminded us that every Member of the House bears a separate and personal responsibility not only for what has happened but for what


is going to happen in Northern Ireland. Those who vote for this White Paper, either because they have not analysed and understood the contradiction at the heart of it, or because they say to themselves "Maybe we shall get by for another year or two in this way", are betraying the trust with which they were sent here and will bear the guilt of what will follow.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I have no qualifications whatever to speak in an Irish debate except 18 months' intensive study of a phenomenon which is sweeping through the Western world and will loom ever larger in our political debates in future, namely, the increasing breakdown and ungovernability of Western States.
We have seen this phenomenon in an extreme form in the Province of Ulster. It is because I have been brooding on this problem for 18 months, projecting present tendencies into the future, scaring myself literally white in the process, that I thought it necessary that an English ignoramous representing an English constituency should say a few words in this debate.
First, I assure the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that when I go into the Lobby tonight, as I intend to, it will be with no sense of elation, and it will not mean that my present respect and admiration for the Secretary of State has transformed itself into a total enthusiasm for his political ideas or his White Paper.
I am rarely presented in this House with a choice between good and evil— between black and white. Almost invariably I have to choose between two unsatisfactory courses of action on the basis of my own judgment. My contacts with the Whips Office are so tenuous and spasmodic that I receive little guidance on which is the least unsatisfactory course of action to adopt, and it is in that spirit that I intend to go into the Lobby tonight to vote for the least unsatisfactory course.
Having said that, I want to say in addition, in a speech that will itself be shot through with paradox, that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this White Paper is also shot through with paradox

and contradiction. If this were presented as a constitutional document, to be accepted or rejected on its own constitutional merits, I could not possibly accept it, and certainly would not vote for it.
This is an abnormal document—if I may use that adjective—to deal with a totally abnormal situation, which has been with us not for just four years but for as long as I have been alive. It was three days after I made my entry into this world that the Anglo-Irish Treaty was accepted in Dublin. One month later the then Parliament of Northern Ireland contracted out and the whole of this turbulent and tragic history began.
The history itself is full of paradox. It is an astonishing thing that in Northern Ireland, the Province with which we associate many forms of violence, the community happens to be rather more law-abiding than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The statistics for 1963–67 for crimes against the person show that the figure for Northern Ireland was the lowest in Western Europe. The number of violent deaths—other than those occasioned by terrorist action—is half as many as in the United Kingdom as a whole, and in the United States of America there are 18 times as many. One set of statistics shows that the Northern Irish community is relatively peaceful and law-abiding. Why is there this violent explosion of lawlessness?
Here again, with infinite regret, I must go three-quarters of the distance with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I do not accept the thesis that there are two nations in Northern Ireland—a thesis, incidentally, first presented in The Times in, I think, 1912, by a Mr. Moneypenny. We are accustomed to theories and bizarre ideas in the columns of that journal. I do not accept that there are two nations, but there are two nations potentially; the two communities in Northern Ireland are evolving to nationhood.

Mr. Powell: For correctness, I said that two nations are contending for the same territory. That is not the same as to say that there are two nations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fletcher: I accept the correction. I would not use the word "nations", but I cannot think of the term I need to


express my concept of the situation—perhaps "three-quarter nations". By "nation" I mean a community with its own pattern of myths and legends, its own version of its history and a sense of distinct identity against all other communities and nations, and we have that in Northern Ireland.
It was exemplified yesterday in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who can go over to Northern Ireland, move into the Catholic community and never have the slightest contact with the Protestant community. It was exemplified by the fact that his friend—and, incidentally, mine —Mr. George Currie, lately a Member of this House, got himself into serious political difficulties because he associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.
It is this separation, in which communities begin to think of themselves as quasi-nations, which causes political emblems and flags to acquire a significance in Northern Ireland which they never had in this country. The Flags and Emblems Act of 1954 would be a comparatively harmless and innocuous piece of legislation if it were enacted by this House for this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Farcical.

Mr. Fletcher: I have voted for so many farcical measures that I would not mind one more. What would be relatively harmless and innocuous here, in the context of Northern Ireland becomes an offence and an affront to people's sense of identity and nationality. It becomes explosive and disruptive.
It is because of this fantastic situation, when the so-considered politically normal in Northern Ireland is totally abnormal by every criterion accepted by the rest of the United Kingdom, that we have a paradoxical White Paper presented to deal with the problem.
I agree, again, with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the concept of power sharing in any other part of the United Kingdom—indeed, in any other part of the world— would be totally farcical. It is stupid to expect political parties to concentrate themselves in the course of an election

campaign, in the sure and certain knowledge that after that campaign is concluded they will have to dissipate any power that they may have won during that campaign. It is a nonsensical proposition for any other country or any other part of the United Kingdom.
I have been looking for precedents. There was a time when that part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that we now call the Republic of Austria was detached from the wreckage of that empire and a similar system had to apply in Austria. There was an agreement between the two main parties—the Peoples Party and the Socialist Party—to allocate Ministries to themselves. The Peoples Party traditionally claimed control of the Ministry dealing with the Army and converted that into a power base for the Peoples Party. The Social Party claimed the Ministry dealing with the police and did likewise. It was a fantastic situation. In the post-Second World War situation it has altered. The anschluss finished it off, but it preserved the Republic of Austria for a time.
I am not suggesting that the White Paper will produce a political miracle in Northern Ireland. I do not see how it can. It may conceivably help to remove the connection between political power and a particular sort of religious belief. In other words, it may encourage people to fight elections on political issues such as, for instance, how rapidly and how effectively the people of Northern Ireland can get the 200,000 houses and the 40,000 extra jobs they need, instead of fighting the election on the proposition that King William III is still alive and kicking, or that the Earls of Ulster, who left in the early part of the seventeenth century, will come back and create an Elysium in the ghettos of Belfast.
It may conceivably produce a situation in which politicians in Northern Ireland are compelled by the electorate—which may in time forsake confessional politics —to address themselves to those subjects which are the proper concern of politicans and of all who are engaged in political conflict, whether or not they are politicians. It may. It was beginning to happen when the Republic of Austria was destroyed in 1938. There is that feeble, slender precedent but, whatever the paradoxes and contradictions, I am


prepared to give it a trial with considerable scepticism and no degree of enthusiasm.
I wish the Secretary of State no ill. More political reputations have been buried in Irish soil than in the soil of any other part of the world. The traditional relationship between this Parliament and Ireland has been of reputations made in this Parliament being demolished and eventually buried over there. I am willing to give the Secretary of State my vote for his contradictory White Paper because every other alternative that I can conceive or that has been presented to me in the course of the debate—and I have been present more or less throughout— seems to me infinitely worse than the proposals outlined in the White Paper.
There is the military solution—a temporary military solution; we cannot produce solutions that last for thousands of years. Northern Ireland could be placed under martial law. If we imposed martial law we should have to put in more troops and so alter the character of the British security forces there that they would be unrecognisable to British eyes and to those who give them their support in this House and outside.
When our armies are forced to carry out police duties it means that they have to carry them out without the local knowledge in the hands of a good policeman. It means that they have to resort to punitive actions which are very unpalatable. It means that instead of bringing people to trial one is, in a sense, empowered to inflict punishment on whole districts, and there are many parts of the world where that has had to be done.
This I regard as a repellant solution. It is a solution of a kind to one particular problem out of the whole complex of problems to which we are trying to address ourselves in Northern Ireland. But the solution, if it be a solution, is to my mind so much worse than the disease that I cannot possibly entertain it.
The other semingly plausible solution is that advocated by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in his more euphoric moments, namely, to say to Northern Ireland: "The guarantee given in 1949 and 1969 and repeated in the White Paper is meaningless. Since we gave it, we have the power

to withdraw it, and if you do not behave yourselves we will pull out, and that means the security forces as well as the political apparatus."
There is no doubt—and this is part of the danger in the situation—that my hon. Friend speaks for a growing number in the country outside this House. It is not a view that has acquired formidable expression in terms of numbers in this House, but judging by my correspondence it is very strongly and increasingly widely held outside this House.
What if we were to apply that seemingly plausible solution? What if we were to leave Northern Ireland open to the kind of dismal future suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster that the two Irish communities who lay claim to the same territory fight it out? She pointed to the fact that in many parts of the world Governments have emerged as a result of that kind of conflict, though not precisely out of this kind of circumstance.
But if terrorists and terrorism—and terrorism breeds counter-terrorism—are to fight over Ireland and about the future of Ireland for the next decade, how much of the Province will be left at the end of that process? There would be victory of a kind, and it would be for the majority community.
Anyone who imagines that the Republic of Ireland would intervene militarily is, in my view, living in cloud-cuckoo-land. One fact of the situation is that the Republic of Ireland is no longer particularly interested in taking any part of Ulster into the Republic. I cannot see the Republic of Ireland intervening militarily on behalf of any guerrilla actions conducted by the minority community, and the result could only be one in which the two sides literally clawed themselves to destruction and destroyed the economy and the society of Northern Ireland in the process. Thus, that is not an alternative.
We are left with a contradictory and in many ways muddled and paradoxical White Paper and the two Bills which are to follow. One paradox about them is that right at the outset they assume so fundamental a change in attitudes in Northern Ireland to make them work as amounts to a reconstruction of the whole of Northern Irish society.
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is now engaged in an enterprise the magnitude of which he may not understand himself. It is comparable to the enterprise embarked upon by the United States of America in the period of the reconstruction of the South, a political exercise that cost the life of one President and produced the impeachment of another, Andrew Johnson—an experiment that lasted 100 years, is still not completed, and is still not successful.
Yet, is spite of my scepticism, I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. He will go back to the Province of Northern Ireland with my support, because every other alternative of which I can think—I repeat myself, but it is necessary to underline this proposition—is infinitely worse than the one that has been presented to us in the course of the debate.
It is for that reason, and with no enthusiasm whatever, that I shall vote for the White Paper tonight.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. John Spence: I wish to make a few general observations, but first some particular observations, on the White Paper.
In my view there never was any prospect that the White Paper would meet with universal acceptance in Ulster. It never had a chance. Nevertheless, from a long connection with that Province, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I believe to be the most courageous effort yet made to guide Ireland in the direction of a solution of its centuries-old problems.
Having read the White Paper, I believe he has had the courage to go to the central and perennial issue in Irish affairs. What he is saying in the White Paper is, "You must work together". I am sure it is clear now to Ulster Members on both sides of the House that if they fail to work together the whole settlement outlined in the White Paper must fail.
To those who already forecast failure, I say that the possibilities that could flow from failure do not bear contemplation. From recent consultations with my relatives and friends—and there is a certain limitation on what a private Member can do in this regard—I find no reason yet to condemn the proposals of

my right hon. Friend, or to imagine that they will necessarily fail.
I approach the White Paper with a confident assumption that failure will not happen but reason and moderate opinion will prevail.
I therefore apply my mind to areas in which we in this House can help, through constructive discussion and by analysis, the ideas and the philosophy behind the White Paper. How can we aid its success? I believe the first and essential aid to success is electoral speed. The elections to the Assembly must in my view be given top priority. My right hon. Friend said he had this in mind. I believe he is conscious of this and of how necessary these elections are. We welcome the indication he gave of when the elections would take place. His target date was somewhere about the end of June.
I put the Assembly elections by far above the necessity for local government elections. I believe it would be wrong to allow the local government elections to take place before the elections to the Assembly. Whilst there are several reasons for my advocating this course. I will confine myself to one only.
For the past 12 months at least, the political stage has of necessity been handed over to militants in the Ulster community. Moderates have had a poor platform and they have had little authority. Moderates exist in Ulster society and it is probable that they remain as a major force. The stage cannot be left any longer to the militants. Therefore speed in arranging the Assembly elections is of the very essence.
The second aid to success concerns the shades of political opinion that my right hon. Friend will feel able to permit to take part in the election. I know that I am on dangerous ground here and that I am touching on prejudice and emotion. But I would ask my right hon. Friend to extend the spectrum of political opinion as widely as he possibly can. To my Ulster colleagues on my side of the House, I say let them regard this situation with a sense of reality. Both Sinn Fein and Republican clubs exist. I should like to see both organisations brought out into the open and their real power base in population support put to the test. It could be as insignificant in the North as


it was shown to be in the South in the recent general election.
The third aid to success concerns security. Security goes to the heart of any society and I welcome the emphasis placed on it in the White Paper. But will my right hon. Friend give a little more, and be a little more explicit about this and particularly about the police force? Will he examine his proposals again, bearing in mind that after the last four years of violence and intimidation, security has become a predominant issue in the minds of people in Ulster? From talking to these people, if I understand their feelings correctly, I believe that they wish for an effective and well-equipped police force in which the community has a real responsibility and a real involvement. This could be my right hon. Friend's goal once the Assembly is ready to accept its responsibilities.
There are two further aids to success with which I wish to deal. One is the question of Ulster representation in this House. Setting aside for a moment the degree of devolution to the Assembly that may be agreed ultimately, on a population basis the sending of 12 Members to Westminster is, as a matter of arithmetical fact, under-representation. That is beyond dispute.
What can be discussed however is the increase or decrease in representation which will be appropriate to correspond with the degree of devolution. As the degree of devolution has not yet been decided, and cannot be decided now, I suggest that the correct and appropriate decision to make now is that the representation in this House should not be decided. I should be happier if my right hon. Friend could respond to that by saying that representation, either more or less than at present, would be looked at afresh once the degree of devolution has been determined and seen to be operating satisfactorily.
The other point concerns the United Kingdom status of Northern Ireland, which is referred to in detail in paragraph 32 of the White Paper. The White Paper says that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ex-

plain how the people's wishes in deciding the issue will be obtained? Is it to be through the elected Assembly or by a referendum? I hope that a referendum will be the method adopted and that tests of opinion through elections would not be taken too frequently—I hope all parties will agree to this course of action—and that it perhaps should be once every 15 years. I believe that a period of constitutional stability is now needed both to restore confidence in the Province and to give the White Paper's proposals a chance of constructive operation on their merits.
I have endeavoured to pinpoint some of the areas where a little give and take might help the White Paper's chances and prospects for success. There are parts of it which could be improved and other parts on which I have not touched but in the last analysis we are left to judge the White Paper solely on its merits. Its outstanding merit, as I see it, is its purpose to provide a way forward out of the present violence and instability which will benefit the law-abiding majority in both communities.
We cannot say categorically whether it will work. But I believe it has an excellent chance of doing so providing that the law-abiding majority in both communities asserts its right to decide its future by the peaceful democratic means that the White Paper seeks to promote.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: In his opening remarks yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the past which failed. That blinding flash of insight, for the British Prime Minister to admit that fact, is most welcome even at this late stage. I regret, however, that that insight did not lead the Prime Minister to dispense a more accurate analysis of why it had failed. It behoves the Members of this House to examine once more what, I would suggest, is the basic reason why the past failed. It failed because an attempt was made to establish and continue an unnatural entity known as Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) deliberated at great length and very expertly about what a Member of Parliament should do. He said it was not that they should give things a try, but should


use their judgment. That is a valid point. But it is equally valid for me to say that over 50 years ago similar Members of Parliament came to this place and exercised their judgment on what was right for Ireland. Now 50 years later a British Prime Minister is talking about the past which failed.
If they were wrong then in their judgment, surely it is at least conceivable that they have been wrong again about what is basically at fault in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I believe the White Paper will fail like the past has failed, not because the people who wrote it wish it to fail, nor because the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland necessarily wish it to fail. It will fail because it cannot succeed because it attempts the impossible. It attempts to normalise what is basically an abnormal state, an abnormal entity. In simplistic terms it is like an attempt to redecorate a building or house which should have been demolished long ago.
I have no doubt that the team which drafted the White Paper wish earnestly that it will work. But earnest wishes unfortunately will not be enough. It is reasonable from a British point of view and it is well drawn up in the British dimension. But it does not work in the Irish dimension. My basic thesis is that this is an Irish problem and that it will be solved satisfactorily only in the Irish dimension.
It may well be that the White Paper will improve for a time, or ameliorate, conditions in Northern Ireland, but I fear that it will not solve the problem in Northern Ireland because that problem is essentially a problem of one community with two traditions opposed to each other through the lack of a common allegiance. The most radical defect of the White Paper is that it makes no attempt at all to seek, or to lay the basis for, accommodation between two opposing traditions. What is needed is an attempt to accommodate those two allegiances rather than to attempt to frustrate both. The power of the Unionists has been reduced slightly without in any way increasing the powers of the minority. Voices have been raised in the Unionist tradition about this notion of shared loyalty or shared allegiance, but the White Paper

does not make any real attempt to foster or foment that sort of thing.
It also ignores what one might call the considerable developments which have taken place on both sides in the last year. It attempts institutions which may well look fair, but—this is where it basically falls down—it affirms a link repugnant, if we take the figures of the last referendum, at least to 42 per cent. of the population and makes them feel aliens in their own land. All that has happened in the last year in my opinion —and I believe there is ample evidence of this—has promoted suspicion in the other 58 per cent. that the link is by no means solid or inviolate. So while it has offended one side it has by no means satisfied the other.
Someone said the other day that if by some queer logic the British satisfy both sides we might make progress. Englishmen are fond of making patronising remarks like that about the Irish people, but it was not an intelligent remark because it showed an abysmal lack of understanding of what is going on.
The White Paper gives the minority certain rights to dissent from what they do not believe in. They can now dissent from the fact that they are part of the United Kingdom, but the White Paper does not give either community the right to assent to any new constitutional arrangement that may come about.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) yesterday what his position would be if the new Assembly when elected—let us pose the hypothetical question to which the people of Northern Ireland have a right to have an answer—decided in conference before meeting the Secretary of State that it would be best for all concerned to negotiate some form of independence. My hon. Friend did not answer directly, but he indicated that if the Northern Irish are foolish enough for that sort of thing we should have to look at it again.
When he winds up the debate tonight, the Minister of State might give some indication of what British Government thinking would be in that case, because the Prime Minister has gone on record that the Assembly would be cut off without a penny and he scolded and wagged his finger. That is not the sort of language


calculated to promote good relations in Northern Ireland. Whether or not it goes down well with the British public may be another matter. Without increasing any efforts towards shared allegiance, it has merely decreased the effectiveness of either side in the decision-making process. Finally, I suppose, one would say that it seeks a reasonable compromise from a British point of view but ignores all attempts at accommodation in the Irish dimension.
Another basic defect is very evident when one reads the White Paper. The British Government cannot make up their mind whether they are dealing with two communities or one community, which is divided. Paragraph 52 refers to either community and again to a divided community. It is this basic failure to understand and to come down on either side-either that we are one community which is divided or two separate communities— which the British Government have not solved in the terms of the White Paper.
The question is, which are we? I believe that we are one community with two traditions, two allegiances. I believe the beginning of the solution will be found when those two communities can meet and discuss as equals, and perhaps in this case the White Paper has something to recommend it. It will at least enable the communities to meet as equals. We shall be equally second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. There will be levelling down and all will equally lack power. But until the two communities can agree themselves on something to which they will give basic allegiance, this White Paper or any other White Paper cannot solve the problem.
There may well be in the community I represent, the minority community, a fairly widespread desire to look again or to look more deeply at this White Paper and to say, "Let us examine it a little more closely to see what is in it." But there are certain fundamental issues which prevent that closer look, certain issues which hinder or impede any real examination of the White Paper from where the minority stand. I will enumerate them.
The first, of course, is internment and the proposal to continue detention without trial. Following the remarks, which

were similar, by the hon. Lady, the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), whether English men like it or not, or whether they understand it or not, this is the way in which the minority views things. Ministers at the Dispatch Box can decide anything they like, but they will not change the opinions of the minority just by producing a White Paper or an Act of Parliament. The minority see that the continuation of internment means that even though there is to be a new structure and things will be called by different names, essentially the same old policy of repression is to be carried over into the new order. Until the slate can be wiped clean in this respect, a great proportion of the minority, who might otherwise want to look sympathetically at this proposal, are unable to do so.
Another matter quite rightly mentioned is the police. The Secretary of State says in the White Paper that to be effective a police force must be accepted. It must have a degree of integration with the community which it is protecting and within which it is operating. That makes he best of good sense. But on the other hand he says that the RUC must be strengthened in manpower and equipment, ignoring the most basic fact in Northern Ireland life, that the police force as now formed is not acceptable to the minority. They regard it, whether for good reasons or bad—and I think these are good reasons—as a police force basically sectarian, conceived as a political arm to defend a certain set of individuals in the ascendancy of power. There is no evidence to suggest that the nature of the police force has changed. To police the new order the Secretary of State envisages in Northern Ireland he should surely have had the breadth of vision and the political courage to say that the police force at the very least needs very drastic reform
As yet, not a word has been mentioned about how the police are to be reformed. I have specific ideas about how they should be reformed. But those will probably be matters for debate on the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. and large Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) laughs. He thinks that I shall suggest that all policemen ought to be abolished. That is not my view at all. Certain policemen are a good idea. But they have to be policemen of a certain


type and not the para-military arm of a political party.
The third matter to which attention must be given ought not to be important but is vitally important. I refer of course to the Flags and Emblems Act. The fact that flags and emblems mean a lot in Northern Ireland is self-evident. All that the British people have to do is to switch on their television sets, especially around 12th July, to see just how important flags and emblems are to the majority community. It is reasonable to assume also that flags and emblems are very important to the minority community. One of my Unionist colleagues said yesterday that flags of the Republic were banned only when they were used in inflamatory situations where they were likely to lead to breaches of the peace. That sort of language puts its finger on the problem. How is it that the flag of the Republic of Ireland could lead to a breach of the peace? The police say that it does and therefore that it cannot be carried, on the assumption that if the majority community are taunted by the flag they will resort to violence of some sort.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman also agree that the Union Jack is not allowed to be carried in certain areas in Northern Ireland for the same reason?

Mr. McNamara: Not under the Flags and Emblems Act.

Mr. McManus: It may be that the inhabitants of a certain area have grounds to hate the Union Jack, and it may be said that they have excellent reasons for doing so. But there is no statutory measure by which it is forbidden to carry it.
This offensive piece of legislation which has no great practical importance—or certainly should not have—ought to be removed. Any flag that anyone wishes to raise should be raised. If that change were brought about I believe that there would be a general falling off in all flag waving in Northern Ireland, which itself would be good.
My fourth recommendation to the Government is one which has been dealt with already. For that reason I simply refer to it. It is the need for full and free elections. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) recommended that all persons who wished to

contest elections should be free to do so. I agree with him passionately. In doing so I refer specifically to Sinn Fein and to the Republican clubs which are proscribed organisations.
There is a suggestion between the two Front Benches which will not wash. They wish to remove the restrictions but in some way or other to set up people so that they may fall into the trap of the British Government's making—

Mr. McNamara: Nonsense.

Mr. McManus: It most certainly is not nonsense. It has been suggested that perhaps we can coax them out into the open so that they may be defeated at the elections and then we shall know who represents whom. That is not the way to go about business in a fair and open-minded way. It is not likely to encourage people of that nature to contest the elections.
I believe that not only should everyone be entitled to contest elections but that the elections should be free. A person standing for election ought not to have in the back of his mind the feeling that if he is defeated, after the election is over it is likely that the security forces will be knocking on his door because he identified himself and made certain statements in his campaign.

Mr. Orme: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) does not wish to misrepresent what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said about this matter. What he did was to ask whether it was possible to find means whereby the Republican clubs and Sinn Fein could be allowed to stand as parties and to put up candidates with no strings attached. There was no thought in his mind that this should be a trap which could be sprung at some future date.

Mr. McManus: I am delighted to have that assurance.
If all these conditions are met or an attempt is made to meet them, I believe that the White Paper can perhaps make a significant contribution. If they are not met, I fear that the White Paper cannot and will not make any significant contribution.

7.26 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The one announcement in this debate which will be very helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland is the announcement of a firm date some time in June about the elections in Northern Ireland.
For far too long the representatives of Northern Ireland have been asked for whom they speak. For far too long the people of Northern Ireland have had no opportunity at the ballot box to say how their country should be run and to whom they give their political allegiances. At this juncture in the affairs of Northern Ireland it is very important that the people of Northern Ireland be given an opportunity to speak through the ballot box. I cannot stress that enough.
I trust that all the very diverse forces in Northern Ireland—people who suffer from a sense of frustration, people who feel that this House has not been right in its attitudes and decisions; and they come from both sides of the political and religious fences—will at long last have an opportunity to express themselves by supporting those candidates who put forward views in which they believe.
I realise that there is one great difficulty, and it is one which must be faced in the light of the circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to have someone who has committed atrocities and advocated their committal finding himself suddenly standing at the ballot box to be tested. But there is no reason why people who have not engaged in subversive activities but who still believe in the principles of Republicanism and the declared policies of the IRA should not stand as candidates and voice the opinions of those to whom they look for votes.
I should welcome a full expression of opinion from every section of the community at the ballot box. Only by that will this House understand the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland. That is very important.
Let us suppose that the Government say, "Very well. The Provisional Sinn Fein will be made legal and its candidates may stand for election." They will stand on an abstentionist policy, in any event. They have declared that they will not sit in the Assembly or have discussions with representatives of the Assembly

By recognising the Provisional Sinn Fein we should achieve very little since even if they were allowed to fight elections they would not take part in the democratic process.
There are a number of matters that this House ought to bear in mind. It may be that we are discussing today not Northern Ireland but the future of the whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps hon. Members do not realise what I am trying to get over to them. In many senses we in Northern Ireland have been caught up in a struggle which goes far beyond the basic differences between two sections of the community.
There are other elements in Northern Ireland which do not want a settlement of any kind. They are elements that are purely and totally destructive. They want to see the destruction of Northern Ireland not merely as an entity in the United Kingdom but as part of the Western democratic system. All sorts of diverse forces are at work in Northern Ireland which seek to forward the forces of anarchy, revolution and finally the destruction of democracy.
Many of the people of Northern Ireland feel there has been a retreat in the face of that attack. That is their opinion. A year ago many hon. Members appeared to think that if Stormont were removed a settlement would come. Stormont was removed but the violence continued. Many hon. Members now take the view, "Let us give the White Paper a try." At the back of their minds they are saying the same thing—"Perhaps if we give it a try the violence will cease."
I am not at all convinced—no matter what test is made at the ballot box—that certain forces in Northern Ireland will not continue their terrorism. Some of the people who have committed some of the terrible atrocities which have blackened the pages of our history in the past weeks and months are not interested in the well-being of any section of the community. They do not care about the people who are homeless. They do not care about unemployment and the difficulties which face the people who have to live their lives and go to their places of work. All they care about is carrying on their murder and atrocities.
The House should take cognisance of the fact that the IRA will have to be


defeated if it is determined to carry on its fight of murder, burnings and bombings. The only way to defeat it is with the strong arm of the law. I made myself unpopular for speaking about internment. I did not think that it was any solution to the problem. I was proved right.
The House must realise that there are forces in Northern Ireland which care not for the Government White Paper and the opinion of democracy. They are determined to go on with their policies. They believe that violence in the end will pay. It is a sad thing, but to some degree violence has paid off in Ulster. That is the sad story which is the result of retreating in the face of the urban guerrilla groups. It is tragic, when we read of guerrilla groups in other countries, to find that it is hard to discover an instance when the forces of democracy carried the day. Those are sombre thoughts for every hon. Member.
There are many people who make diverse comments on the White Paper. There are many people who say that it is sweet and reasonable and that anybody who votes against it is unreasonable. It is said that anybody who objects to it will bear a heavy responsibility. Surely it is our duty to voice our objections on the Floor of the House to what we think is obnoxious in the White Paper. There are some who have developed strands of intolerance and who object to us opposing parts of the White Paper. Surely we are entitled to object to it. Surely the people of Northern Ireland at the ballot box have the rgiht to say what they think about the matter.
I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). He gave me what I would call a text for an address. He said that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Paradoxically, running through the debate there has been the suggestion that a very dangerous situation could develop if the elections throw up a group in Northern Ireland that this House does not like, with which it does not agree and with which it will not cooperate. It is possible then that with a stroke of the pen the Secretary of State on 31st March next year will say, " Fare thee well." I say that this makes us second-class citizens.
The Assembly will be democratically elected on a franchise which this House has approved but by a system of which many people in Northern Ireland do not approve. At present the best thing that the Government could have done was to have the STV system. That will help, it is believed, all groups to get into the Assembly and to voice their opinions. I am no advocate of that system as this House knows. However, the House has drawn up the franchise and has told the people the way in which they will vote.
What happens if Northern Ireland votes a majority of people that this House does not like? The majority may find that they would be happier agreeing with people with whom they disagreed before. They may prefer to choose their rooms in the house by mutual agreement rather than by this Parliament saying, "You will sit in the drawing-room and you will sit in the back attic". If there is an agreement across the Floor and the Assembly comes to the House and says, "That is what we want in Northern Ireland", what will this House do? Will it say, "We have a White Paper. You must abide by the terms of the White Paper. You must bow to the White Paper. You must accept the White Paper"?
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), whose politics and mine are at opposite poles, made a very wise statement. She said that the people of Northern Ireland with whom she is allied now have an antipathy towards the South of Ireland. I should not like to see Northern Ireland ever going outside the Union. It would be my aim to keep it within the Union. However, there is a section of feeling in Northern Ireland that feels restless with the attitude of this House and with the Government. Maybe in these circumstances the Assembly would find itself coming to an agreement about what the future will hold.
What will the Government's attitude be on 31st March next year? Will it be, "We cannot have you. We will not wear you. Fare thee well"? Or will it be, "All right, let us sit down and see what agreement we can reach"? The Leader of the Unionist Party has told us that he will negotiate privately with the Secretary of State and that he will get an agreement on certain things. I am glad that it has been made plain


that there will be no personal or private deals with the Secretary of State. So much for Mr. Faulkner's negotiations. Others have said that they will fight the election and that when they come to this House they will know what strength they have and that they will negotiate on that basis.
Mr. Hume, of Londonderry and of the SDLP, a colleague of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), has said that the SDLP looks upon the Assembly as an elected, negotiating conference.

Mr. Stallard: For 12 months.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Well, at the end of 12 months if the Secretary of State was not pleased, will he wipe the Assembly out by a stroke of the pen? We have been asked in this House, "Why can't you people agree?" There are some things on which we agree. We agree that there should be an election. The Secretary of State has met us on that and we appreciate the efforts made by the Opposition Front Bench about this. There is agreement in this House across the Floor that we should have elections. That is welcomed by everyone, except the Alliance Party which tells us that it will sweep the board. Time will tell.
We are all agreed that there should be further negotiations and some of us agree that the time to negotiate is not now. The time to negotiate is when the people of Northern Ireland have spoken.
The Prime Minister said that some of us were raising fears. We were told that when the plebiscite was over there would be no more discussion about the border. What does the White Paper say? It says that immediately there are Assembly elections this Parliament will call for a conference with the Southern Ireland Parliament and the people who represent elected Northern Ireland opinion. It does not say that they will be elected representatives of the Assembly. The first thing to be discussed will be the border—after telling us that the border was to be taken out of politics. The White Paper says that the discussions will be about the possibility of changing the status of Northern Ireland.
I know this White Paper almost like my Bible. I notice that the Secretary of

State is looking up page 30, paragraph 112(a). This is the "Authorized Version". It says:
the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility— which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status
Why put that first if the border were to be taken out of politics altogether? It should have been relegated to the background altogether. Even the hon. Member for Belfast, West says that there will not be a united Ireland overnight. Even he is prepared to put that into the future.

Mr. Fitt: The end of the month.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Then it will be a long month for the people of Northern Ireland. Those people have to face the fact that they will be having elections. The Secretary of State should spell out whether he believes that the elected Assembly could be an elected conference to discuss matters on which there is not agreement. If we can have an assurance about that we shall be taking a step forwards.
There are many things in the White Paper I could discuss and emphasise. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us tonight that he will let the elections take place and will then be happy to talk with the people in the Assembly who reach some sort of agreement, that will be well and good. This House is saying, " We are tired of this situation. Let the Ulster people decide." The text from the hon. Member for Leeds, South is "The Ulster people will have final decision." Let the Ulster people decide. Will this House let them decide?

7.43 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has recently shown some signs of backsliding, as I told him the other day, into the area of education and away from statesmanship. I want to put on record my disappointment that he has not made more of a direct contribution to the debate, as he could have done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) gave him a welcome when the hon. Member was elected to this House. My right hon. Friend said that he looked forward to


the important role that the hon. Gentleman would be able to play. The obligation upon him now is as great as ever it was.
The real test of working for democracy is not in debate but in the political work that is done in the constituencies. The hon. Gentleman referred to second-class citizens. He knows that there is no danger of my looking upon anyone in that light. I would humbly compare myself with him as an equal citizen but there is not much danger of my going beyond that.
We have seen so far in the debate a dangerous interplay of extremism which will lead us nowhere unless a third solution is found. I regret that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is not now present. The way in which he used the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was wholly destructive and made no contribution to the debate. His counsel was dangerous. There are some obvious reasons why he, of all people, as a former Cabinet Minister, is not in a position to engage in this sort of dangerous attitude. He used his logic. Thomas Hobbes used his drastic logic. If this were an intellectual game the right hon. Gentleman would be free to do so. However it is not just a game.
It is possible to argue that we are facing one group which is concerned to coerce the people of Northern Ireland into a new political alignment and that that group is using the bomb in the process of coercion. That is true. We could equally well say that there are extremist groups at the other end of the political spectrum—I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is leaving the Chamber because I am coming to his amendment. I have moved to his end of the spectrum. At that end of the spectrum we have his modest amendment talking about the number of representatives. Yet this is from someone who has taken part in extremist meetings in Belfast and joined in television interviews with Mr. Craig and others, when the attack on the White Paper was not to do with the modest point of the number of Members in the House but was rather a fundamental attack on the White Paper.
I expected the hon. and gallant Gentleman to repeat what he said in those television interviews instead of giving us a milk-and-water version of his attitude.

Captain Orr: With respect, I repeated precisely what I said earlier. I pointed to the four points on which I found agreement. This is precisely what I have said on television.

Mr. Mendelson: No. In those television interviews the hon. and gallant Gentleman was standing between the hon. Member for Antrim, North and Mr. Craig, taking part in a fundamental root-and-branch attack on this White Paper.

Captain Orr: Captain Orr  indicated dissent.

Mr. Mendelson: It is easy for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to say that because both of the propositions I have outlined are true we are thus faced with two extremist attitudes and that therefore the logic of events points to hostility towards the White Paper.

Mr. McManus: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) because as I remember the interview he did not manage to get a word in edge ways.

Mr. Mendelson: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am more diligent than he. It was only at one television interview that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not get a word in. There were other occasions when he managed to join in. I saw them all. I stayed up late for the purpose.
I return to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It was in many ways a dangerous and important contribution to the debate. I will vote this evening for this White Paper and respond immediately to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member that we all have a duty to explain why we do so. We have to explain to our own constituents whether we have accepted our proper responsibility this evening or whether we are merely doing this because we are saying, "Give it a go".
Whatever the views of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, there is one consideration which ought to make sense to


the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Whatever constituency hon. Members in this House represent it cannot be a matter of indifference to the people of Penistone or the people of Sheffield what might happen in Northern Ireland. This point has not yet been made in this debate. Perhaps people do not want to make it too frankly. That is my first reason for voting for the White Paper.
We cannot allow a situation to develop in which military events take place in Northern Ireland which are completely beyond our control. We have no knowledge of what outside powers may decide to intervene or who may take over the supply of arms to either extreme. Nor do we know what would happen if we washed our hands and left Northern Ireland to be a battlefield. This is a consideration which brings in the direct responsibility of hon. Members, for whatever constituency in the United Kingdom they sit.
There are imperfections in the White-Paper, but it is trying to put an end to two attitudes that have been bedevilling public life in Northern Ireland for many years. In this matter I will get disagreement from hon. Members from Northern Ireland and from other Conservative and Unionists Members. On this side of the House at least we know that for more than 40 years one section of the people in the political life of Northern Ireland has had a monopoly of power. Those people have used this monopoly for a great deal of discrimination for many years. This is the starting point for many of my hon. Friends.
After the first violence in 1969, I went to Belfast as a member of a Labour Party commission for an on-the-spot look, before my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was then Home Secretary, went there. I interviewed a lady who worked in a post office. She said that, for more than 26 years, and up and until six weeks before we arrived, practically all the staff in the post office belonged to one section of the community.
On my visit I also spoke to Captain Anderson in Derry. He was then a member of Stormont. Before going to see Captain Anderson I had spent half

a day visiting the section where most of the people are members of the minority religion. I spoke to Captain Anderson and members of the party which was in the majority at the time. I asked Captain Anderson whether there were any members of the Catholic minority on the staff of the town council. He said they did not have any Catholics employed in the administration. When I asked him whether there had ever been an opportunity to employ a Catholic, he said that 10 years before a man had applied to be deputy director of education and he had been turned down. This is the position and the starting point of many quite unbiassed hon. Members on this side of the House.
There are hon. Members who, under the pretext of modest amendments, are hoping to bring back that domination. We heard some semi-Marxism from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—[Interruption.]—it has been echoed to some extent on the other side of the Chamber—which was regarded by the right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton,South-West as brilliantly logical. His standards are falling. There was a pretence by the hon. Member that there is a system of law and justice among many of her compatriots when she gave a shocking example of members of the Provisional IRA shooting people through the knee when they had committed a number of offences. That is not justice, it is not law, it is not even logic. It is the uncivilised kind of living that existed centuries ago. The majority of Roman Catholics in the Province do not share the attitudes of young hooligans who shoot people through the knee. It is slander for the hon. Lady to say that they approve of such conduct by members of the Provisional IRA. This is quite untrue, as many of us know who have spent days and weeks there talking to people on all sides.
Something different is involved. There are too many people playing at politics. Too many people are wishing, by following an extremist course, to make sure of their re-election either to this House or to the Assembly.
It will depend very much on the hon. Member for Antrim, North—for whom I am not alone in having a sincere regard —and others like him and the way in


which they conduct themselves in this election campaign as to what can be done with the Assembly and by the Assembly when it is elected. I know he will agree with me on that point. If people start seeking firm assurances now from the Secretary of State on everything which may happen once the Assembly has been elected, they will condemn it to something far less fruitful than would otherwise be the case.
I suggest a slightly different attitude to the hon. Gentleman. There are suggestions in the White Paper to put an end by agreement to the throwing of bombs, the attempted assassination and the actual killing. That is my second main reason for voting for the White Paper..
I would say to those hon. Members on my own side who are within my hearing that they have a similar duty. Tonight, we are giving a signal in favour of the replacement of violence by an admittedly modest and imperfect attempt to reintro-duce politics into the life of the people of Northern Ireland. I appeal to hon. Members to vote with me for the White Paper so as to help to give that signal.
My third reason concerns the kind of things that the Assembly might do. I think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been rather harsh to Mr. Faulkner. I am not known as a one-man admiration society for Mr. Faulkner, but the hon. Member has been harsh on him. After all, anyone who faces the task of leading a political party in the face of the kind of combination of the "terrible three" who appeared on television the day after publication of the White Paper has his work cut out. I felt some compassion for Mr. Faulkner on the evening of the meeting of the Unionist Council when he had to prepare a policy.
It is essential that we should have agreement among ourselves in the House —not only those directly involved in the Province—to approach this election with the best possible will to see that it can be as democratic an election as could take place in any British community. Facing similar difficulties, I do not know whether, for instance, the part of the country that I represent would necessarily act more reasonably then some of the colleagues of the hon. Member back in Ulster. I have no attitude of superiority in this respect. I do not know what pas-

sions may lead people to do in politics. Wherever we speak, wherever we run our campaign, we should all give support to the Secretary of State. I say this deliberately to the right hon. Gentleman, recognising that he is a member of another party. In our day-to-day conduct we should not try to catch him out with clever questions, such as, "Will you guarantee that if we elect the Assembly peacefully we can immediately proceed to destroy one of the central sections of the White Paper?".
In putting forward this document to the people of Northern Ireland the Government must say that they expect people to accept the basic principles. What would be the consequences if they did not? If the Government responded to one extreme view and said, "All right, we do not insist on this central section. This is just an exercise. You can do what you like afterwards and you do not have to be conscious of any political principles involved in the White Paper ", what would the minority say? Does not the hon. Member for Antrim, North see, as anyone else ought to be able to see, that this is a most carefully put together document and that it could not be anything else but that? I do not expect the document to give me all that I may regard as reasonable. By upsetting it before the election campaign has taken place, all the dangers which we are trying to exorcise would return in full force.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry that I did not get my point over to the hon. Gentleman. It was this. If the Assembly were elected and, by force of circumstance, there was a coming together of opinion by the main body in the Assembly, from both sides of the fence, and they agreed to say to the Secretary of State, across the board, "These are the things that together we are agreed that we should have", what would happen? That was the point. I was not saying that one section should dominate the Assembly. I was saying, surely the Secretary of State should be prepared to negotiate with them.

Mr. Mendelson: I understood the hon. Gentleman perfectly, and I object to what I understood. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the people of one extreme point of view, the provisional IRA. the


people of the extreme Protestant viewpoint, and some people in between, might find that in numbers they have 43 or 45 members in that Assembly and that they then agree to try to change the whole basis of the White Paper on which they have just been elected. The hon. Gentleman wants in advance a commitment from the Secretary of State. That is a most unreasonable and dangerous course.
The democratic course is to accept the White Paper as a basis, to work it, to have a democratic election campaign and to leave the future to the future, instead of trying to arouse suspicions as to what might happen after the election. I am trying modestly to advise the hon. Gentleman to desist and to adopt the alternative attitude.
The Division tonight will be quite as important as was indicated by the right hon Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. In a debate of this kind, naturally there have been quite a number of speeches which have rightly been critical of the political basis of the White Paper or of some of its details. That is what the House of Commons is for. The Chair is obliged and willing to call hon. Members who have views that are critical of the main proposal in a larger proportion than those who might say that they accept the general policy and agree with it. Otherwise, the views of critics would be very largely ignored and the general formation of opinion in the House would not take place.
But although that is so, there are considerable numbers of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members of other parties, who accept the political principle involved in the White Paper, although they may have reservations on particular points. Some of those reservations have been brought out. No doubt they will be mentioned again tonight from the Opposition Front Bench.
A considerable number of hon. Members know also that this document cannot be perfect. This is a most difficult attempt to reintroduce ordinary politics, as a substitute for the gun and the assassin, into the lives of the majority of law-abiding, sincere people of Northern Ireland. Some of them are terrorised by the activities of extremist minorities, which must be neutralised and defeated so that the majority can live freely a political life.

How does one do that? It cannot be done by preaching.
The final reason why I shall support the White Paper in the Lobby is that preaching against extremists is futile. The only way to beat extremists and to provide a proper political basis for the majority of religions and sections of the community is to put forward a modest basis for political life after taking a great deal of advice. With the co-operation of hon. Members over the last 12 months, the Government have done this in this document. I shall vote for it with conviction.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) objects to what he calls a monopoly of power in the former Stor-mont Parliament because it was a Unionist Government. I have not heard him criticise other monopolies of power which exist elsewhere in the world and which are wholly Left. On the other hand, surely it will be conceded that the power that was held by Stormont was held by majority rule. There was one man, one vote. That Government ruled by a democratic majority.
So far in the debate it seems that there has been unanimity on two matters. First, it is impossible to exaggerate the integrity, patience, courage and abstract fairness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues. It would be churlish not to admit that. Secondly, it would be impossible to exaggerate the heroic role of the Army in its unenviable task. Its discipline, tolerance and restraint has been unbelievable and unique in the face of insurrectionary violence and savagery.
Beyond that, there are differing views held on both sides of the House. There are those who, like myself, feel that while the constitutional proposals contained in the White Paper may be reasonable for reasonable people, many of the people in Ulster are not altogether reasonable and there is an impossibility of being able to apply these terms in order to change the heart of the people in that Province.
The White Paper presupposes the possibility of a political solution, which is questionable. The parties involved are irreconcilable. The only immediate solution, as I see it, is a military solution,


because it is impossible to legislate fundamental differences out of existence.
The historic affiliations between political parties and religions are so deep-seated that I cannot see how, by a White Paper, they can be changed. However academically fair the White Paper may be, it cannot work. There is no evidence of that possibility.
On the other hand, we have been conditioned by the evidence which is forthcoming daily of the atrocities which are taking place in the Province. There is no atrocity so appalling so that we cannot anticipate it happening.
In this climate of behaviour, I believe that we have to act in a rather different way. Our record for imposing constitutions on our erstwhile colonies and dependencies has not been wholly successful or promising in recent years. Elsewhere we have destroyed multi-party parliaments and replaced them with totalitarian one-party Governments. Ulster had a genuine one-party Government democratically elected with majority rule. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, speaking in the debate on the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 20th March 1972, stated:
In the first instance it is temporary and will operate for one year. Stormont will be prorogued and not dissolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1972; Vol. 834. c. 241.]
In fact Stormont has been dissolved at a stroke and destroyed. I believe that the dis-establishment of Stormont and the disbandment of the B-Specials has not produced the peaceful conditions envisaged by the temporary euphoria which existed in the House on the establishment of direct rule.
During the period August 1969 to March 1973 729 men, women and children have been killed. Of that total figure 220 were members of the security forces and 508 were civilians. But since direct rule 318 civilians and 147 members of the security forces have been killed. This is surely evidence that direct rule has not had a satisfactory effect in restoring peace in Ireland. The situation in which irregular forces are capable of murderous behaviour is surely partly due to the fact that not enough strength was employed by the Government to wipe out the IRA at the time of their most serious atrocities.
What compensation will Ulster now have for the abolition of Stormont? Surely the Council of Ireland, proportional representation, and shared powers are likely to lead only to further instability. As I see the situation, the possibility that people who have been involved in terrorist offences may be able to stand for Parliament will be a serious matter. Is it said that they are to be allowed to stand for the new Assembly? One London newspaper contained a story in the last few days that an individual who is in the hands of the police in connection with the Old Bailey bombing is a potential candidate for the Assembly. Can Republicans, dedicated to a United Ireland and practising violence, serve in an administration that is determined to retain Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom?
The situation in Ulster as I see it is virtually a state of war, though few people are prepared to admit it. We are involved not only in the Province but in the real possibility of it spreading in this country, and there is a daily danger of an escalation of events from Ulster to Liverpool, Glasgow and London. Murder has not abated, and so long as the low profile exists I have every fear that this situation will continue.
It has been said by everybody who has the interests of peace and the future harmony of Ulster at heart that the UDA, the UVF, the Vanguards and other irregular bodies have committed acts which would not be countenanced by this House. Surely, in the light of the daily events in Belfast and elsewhere in Ulster, is it surprising that there has been retaliation? One would imagine that had events like the Old Bailey bombing taken place regularly in this country our people might have reacted in a most unfortunate but understandable way. Coming after the tragic events in Aldershot and the CS bomb that was thrown in this House only two years ago, there is a real danger— and we should recognise this as a future possibility—of an escalation of similar events in this country.
The other danger that I foresee is the spread of the philosophy on the lines of, "A plague on both your houses". There are many people in this country who feel that the Army should pull out because of the way which our troops have been treated by those who have been active


against them. But this is unthinkable. It could only lead to a massacre in the Province and an inevitable escalation of events here.
We in this country owe a great debt to Ulster not least because of the loyalty during the last war of citizens in the Province, which can be compared more than favourably with what happened in the Irish Free State during the war. For that reason alone one would imagine that there would be a degree of understanding. But, apart from that, despite everything that has happened, we must remember that nearly 600,000 people voted in favour of Ulster remaining part of the United Kingdom. That also is something of which we must be proud. Although understandably there are people who have hopes that by pursuing the White Paper proposals a satisfactory result will be achieved, I would conclude by saying that when the wish is the father to the thought the offspring inevitably will be illegitimate. There is no reason to believe that the implementation of the White Paper will provide peaceful conditions in the Province—and. after all, peace is the aim we all seek.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Mr. Soref), but I would not go very far with him in his argument. He seems to be projecting a military solution to the problem. I come from a constituency in the heart of Scotland which has sent the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders three times to Northern Ireland. Some of the troops in that regiment have been back to Ireland on duty five times. I do not think we should ask our troops constantly to undertake more tours of duty in Northern Ireland. I do not say this because I believe the troops in Northern Ireland have not performed a useful function. I am in no way a militarist, but I have great admiration for the work of the British Army in Northern Ireland. No Army in the world could have done the job better.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that morale among the troops was high. People in the United Kingdom are beginning to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "We do not think that any more of our young boys' lives should

be lost in Northern Ireland for causes which we on this side of the Irish Channel do not understand."
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct to say that the struggles which are taking place in Northern Ireland relate to the future of the whole of the United Kingdom. We are trying to resolve in Northern Ireland whether communities which in some areas are poles apart can live together in tolerance.
I put this thought in the minds of those who see great deficiencies in the White Paper—and I must admit that there are certain deficiencies. Is it worth the life of a British soldier or of one citizen of Northern Ireland to right the deficiencies in that document? I have supported the cause of the civil rights campaign but I have never thought that pursuit of those rights should mean the life of one person.
We have heard arguments about what will happen if people who do not want the White Paper to work are elected. We have to live with that situation if it arises. I do not think it will arise but— if I may argue by analogy—if it happened that people in the 71 constituencies in Scotland chose 36 Scottish Nationalists who were determined to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom and they obtained a majority of the seats, I do not think the United Kingdom Parliament could do very much about it. The people of Scotland, having had put before them in clear electoral terms that that was what was going to happen, would have made their choice, for good or ill.
It is the responsibility of a politician to tell the electorate what his policy is and to be forced to explain to them at the hustings the consequences of that policy. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North or the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) want to fight an election on the basis of root-and-branch opposition to this White Paper and say, in effect, that we will have at the end of the day either a UDI for Ulster or a situation in which we are forced to negotiate or seek terms with our Southern partners, who do not really want us, let them stand in the elections, which I hope will be soon, and say so clearly and definitely, so that the electorate of Northern Ireland will know exactly who and what they are voting for.
With some of my parliamentary colleagues I attended the border poll. I have great misgivings about that form of plebiscite, and will continue to have misgivings about plebiscites, but one thing it proved in a negative form was that it is possible to conduct an election even in the situation in Northern Ireland. The security forces were greatly strained, and I would hope that in terms of the timing and organisation of an election, albeit on the basis of PR, we would pay great attention to trying to ease the role of the security forces in elections to the Assembly. I think that is an important function and I hope that all political parties in Northern Ireland will agree to participate in a free election.
I am not sure how one approaches this delicate area of ensuring that those groups —call them Republican clubs or whatever—are represented at the hustings. I argue very forcibly that they should be, if only on the basis of seeing in clear electoral terms what degree of support they have in the country as a whole. That is a very important consideration, but it is always important to ask people before an eleotion—and I hope that leaders of the political parties, whether for or against the White Paper, will themselves declare that they will not use the election in any way to stir up sectarian hatred— to make a unanimous declaration of their intent.
My concluding remarks relate to the Council of Ireland. As my hon. Friends know, I am a firm and dedicated European. We really ought to be thinking not about a Council of Ireland but about a Council of the two Irelands and Britain, which would take us both in the direction of a true union. One of the more startling things about our recent entry into the European Economic Community was some Southern Ireland politicians coming to me and saying: "We have discovered that our best friend in terms of the Community will be an Englishman". They were wrong: it is a Scotsman—George Thomson—but in saying that they jumped 200 or 300 years in thought and outlook.
I therefore suggest that as soon as possible after the elections—and they must come first, on an agreed time-scale, and I know that the Secretary of State has difficulties—we look, not just to a Council of Ireland to resolve the economic

problems there, but to a council which will unite Great Britain and Ireland to see how we can get a fruitful dialogue with the members of the European Community.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim,South): I have great pleasure in reinforcing what the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said about the wisdom of a council of the British Isles—if he will accept that formula. Within the context of the EEC or outside, it makes practical common sense. It is something that this House would do well to consider in the interval between the approval of this White Paper and the bringing forward of the legislation.
I also apologise to the hon. Member for the fact that he visited my own polling station in the town of Crumlin. I regret that I was not there to receive him, and hope that on another occasion I shall have that pleasure.
I hope that the hon. Member for Pem-stone (Mr. John Mendelson) will permit me gently to correct him. Whether he knew it or not, he was accusing the Westminster Parliament of discriminating in the matter of the Post Office in Londonderry. I think he will recall that the Post Office was always under the control of the Government here. Under no circumstances did the Stormont Parliament have any influence over its operations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Mendelson: This allows me to correct an important mistake. If I said "Post Office" that was an inadvertent mistake. I meant the placing section of the Ministry of Labour in Belfast. In that placing section, whatever the ultimate control, the lady who gave evidence told me that until six weeks before we arrived—and the two events were not connected, of course—there had not been one member of the minority in the placing section. It is easy to see the importance of that situation, because the officials in the placing section put people on to other jobs.

Mr. Molyneaux: That may well be. but the fact remains that ultimate responsibility rested here; it was under the supervision and direction of the Parliament in Westminster.
I am always irritated by evidence of wasted energy and effort. For that reason, I am delighted that there has been very little talk in this Chamber in the past two days of making the White Paper unworkable. In my view, the authors have already done just that. I would prefer a more constructive approach, and say that we will do our level best to improve it out of all recognition.
Some sections of the White Paper are so absurd that one is tempted to wonder whether they were written tongue-in-cheek by a group of civil servants, perhaps somewhat disgruntled and trying to make the Government appear ridiculous as a revenge for having salary increases stopped under the pay freeze mechanism.
Despite denials, the clear message of the White Paper is that violence does pay, and it is a message which, I am sorry to say, will not be missed by subversive groups on this side of the Irish Sea. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is true that the terrorists have not succeeded in their main objective, which was the aim of unification. With respect, he should have said that they have not yet achieved that aim.
They have succeeded in all else. Their most spectacular achievement was, perhaps, the abolition of Stormont, because that was a primary aim. Direct rule conceded that objective and the White Paper gives it permanence.
For that reason, Parliament must produce significant alterations in the proposals when they come forward in legislative form—alterations designed to make the structure much more credible and much more in line with genuine democratic standards. It would be disastrous if the only lesson were that non-cooperation and violence were more effective, politically, than observance of lawful methods. Yesterday's speeches contained many references to restoring the democratic processes, but the real substance of the White Paper proposals has little in common with parliamentary processes.
Provision is made for the trappings of democracy. People will be allowed to vote in elections for the new Assembly. But in reality that Assembly will be a mere sounding board. It will not have effective powers to sustain or dismiss the Executive, since that body will be appointed by the Secretary of State. In-

deed, the Secretary of State will have far greater power over a part of the United Kingdom than is exercised by any of his Cabinet colleagues, even the Crown itself. By combining the powers of Governor and political head in himself, he will occupy an authoritarian position resembling more closely that of a sultan, the one omission being the harem —and here one must accept a certain delay to ensure that the religious views of the concubines reflect a fair balance between the two communities which can be displayed on the sectarian Scoreboard featured in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.
The Council of Ireland is not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested, a tripartite conference. Still less is it a meeting of three Prime Ministers. What is being proposed is a conference between two sovereign Governments and a collection of leaders of Northern Ireland parties, multiplied as they will be by proportional representation. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite would welcome such a system of representation in the councils of the EEC, but one could hardly claim or expect that it would make for cohesion in the face of conflicting demands by various Governments in that body.
On the question of power sharing, my position is that no obstacle should be raised on religious grounds to any person who wishes to contribute to the good government of Northern Ireland. Some of the methods suggested and implied in the White Paper are so clearly seen to be unworkable that any resulting structure would be so unstable as to encourage the belief that it could be only temporary—perhaps it is only meant to be temporary—and that the terrorists and all the other troublemakers would simply regard it as a push-over.
One gets the strong impression that this Parliament has been caught somewhat off balance. I know that many hon. Members expected violent reaction to the publication of the White Paper. A few expected, not without a certain amount of relish, a spell of majority-bashing. Now Parliament is faced with a totally unexpected situation. On the majority side, all parties and groups have resolved to operate the democratic processes. That did not happen by accident, as has been pointed out.
The story will be told in due course, and I feel that history will be somewhat kinder to those of my hon. Friends who co-operated in this effort in bringing together people who had been threatening violence, seating them round a table and getting them to agree to operate the democratic processes to ensure any changes or modifications they thought desirable.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that tonight responsibility would pass from this House to the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that power to decide would pass tonight from the Army on watch to the ballot box and those who would use it. I do not disagree with him. All of us who are electors in Northern Ireland welcome this opportunity and this responsibility. It has been further stated that the ballot box and not the gun should be used to give a verdict on the White Paper.
But here the House is in some difficulty, because the White Paper limits the choices and even states that certain verdicts will be unacceptable. It is this conditional democracy and not the Aunt Sallies of preserving Protestant ascendancy and majority domination which makes the White Paper unacceptable to me in its present form.
One encouraging feature of the debate has been the evidence that something has been happening in this House in the past 48 hours. There is a greater degree of realism than one has experienced in any previous debate on Northern Ireland. This was evident, for example, in the exchanges between the two Front Benches yesterday, in both what was said and what was implied. I get the impression that it is suddenly realised here that there is much more political maturity in Northern Ireland than observers had previously believed, and if the people of Northern Ireland—all of them; I do not refer to them as two communities, because they are all one community—can be treated in future as adults, and if limits are not set to their political development, they can be relied upon to work through the normal parliamentary process. Threats of making the proposals unworkable will become real only if it is shown that their clearly expressed will is to be ignored or defied.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Robert Parry: Many speeches in this debate have favoured a moderate and tolerant approach to the proposals contained in the White Paper. I believe that it is right to keep the debate in as low a key as possible. Having said that, I fully support the condemnation by many hon. Members of violence from whichever source it may spring.
As a Liverpool Member, I speak with some knowledge of the Irish problem. The constituency which I represent has within its boundaries the Irish Centre, and it has long association with Ireland. I understand that the famous Irish trade union leader Jim Larkin first saw the light of day there. The neighbouring constituency of Liverpool, Scotland, which merges with my constituency and which I will have the honour of representing after the next election, also has a long historical association with Ireland. I understand that Mr. De Valera once hid there when he was on the run from the police after escaping from prison, and the Scotland Division was represented in this House by an Irish Nationalist, T. P. O'Connor, for nearly 50 years, from 1885 to 1929.
With this background in mind, following the publication of the White Paper last week I spent a considerable time over the weekend trying to get a consensus of opinion from people in my constituency. I visited the Irish Centre. I discussed the proposals with rank and file members, officers of the committee, a city magistrate, a prominent trade union official, members of my local Labour Party, Councillors and ordinary people in the street. I can assure the House that the overwhelming response I received was that we should give the White Paper and the proposals contained in it a chance.
I feel that the Irish people and the English people are really sick to death of the killing and the violence. I believe that the proposals are a possible blueprint on which we can eventually build a peaceful Ireland. I believe, too, that, particularly for the religious minority, this Bill has many proposals for which many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the Chamber, have been campaigning for many years—among other things election to the Assembly, on proportional representation, the Charter of Human Rights


and the proposal to deal with job discrimination.
This is not, as Protestant extremists claim, a "sell out" to the IRA. The fact that the Provisional IRA has now rejected the White Paper proves the point. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote from the leader in the Liverpool Daily Post following the publication of the White Paper. Under the headline "A Lifeline for Ulster"—and that is what we are debating tonight—it said,
Clearly, it is the Protestant majority who will have to make the greatest sacrifices. The new-style administration, with its 80-member assembly elected by proportional representation, means the end of half a century of built-in privilege and power. But the Unionists and their fellows to the right must have known that the Stormont Parliament would never come back.
The leader goes on to point out that the White Paper has given them the guarantee they seek—a link with the United Kingdom for as long as the majority wish. It concludes by saying:
But it is to be hoped that if the new administration comes into being—and that will depend upon the will and willingness of both sides—Britain will progressively be able to hand over more powers to the Ulster Government.
It is a lifeline, and an ingeniously constructed one at that, which Mr. Whitelaw has offered. Both groups should consider what the alternative could be if they fail to grasp it.
The crux of the problem is what the alternative could be. Without wishing to be alarmist, I think that it could lead to a tragic civil war and bloodshed on a scale that we have never seen before. Already too much Protestant and Catholic blood has been spilled. Far too much Irish blood has drenched the soil of Ulster, and too many British soldiers have been killed in the crossfire. Some of them were from Liverpool, including the young man who was so brutally and cowardly murdered last weekend.
Only the extremists have anything to fear from the White Paper, be they the Provisional IRA or the Protestant backwoodsmen. History has often thrown up little men with delusions of self-grandeur, and I refer now to the one I call King Billy Craig, the self-ordained Fϋhrer of the Protestant hardliners. Mr. Craig would still deny to the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland the human rights, the civil liberties and the natural justice which

Hitler denied to Jewish people in Germany before the war. He has donned the mantle of Carson as the High Priest of Protestant supremacy and the Orange Order. There is little difference between his bully boys of today and Hitler's thugs in pre-war Germany.
It is to be hoped that the majority of Protestant people in Ulster will firmly reject the leadership offered by Mr. Craig and will accept the moderate proposals of the White Paper. I hope, too, that Catholics will accept the proposals as a constructive and positive effort to bring about a just and compassionate society in Northern Ireland.
I conclude by referring specifically to page 8, paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper. Paragraph 26 deals with the serious lack of amenities in the Province. Paragraph 27 says:
In any part of the world an inadequate social environment breeds boredom, aimless-ness, alienation from society, vandalism and even violence. In Northern Ireland all these evils may be compounded by high unemployment and deep political resentments. The need is to create a positive community life in such areas; to do everything possible to provide other outlets than violence for the energies of the people; to demonstrate that authority can be a helpful as well as a coercive influence on their lives.
With this in mind, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will consider again the early ending of the Army occupation of Roger Casement Park. I have raised this subject in recent weeks in Oral and Written Questions, and I have received representations from the Gaelic Athletic Association asking me to make further representations to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will be possible in the near future for the British Army to end its occupation. The GAA is not affiliated to any political party and does not support any one particular religion. I believe that encouragement and support for cultural and sporting activities in Northern Ireland will help in the present climate. I shall go into the Lobby tonight to support the White Paper, and I hope that it will lead to peace and sanity in Ulster.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. David James: I am happy to go along with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry). We have had a contrast in styles, between the common sense of the hon.


Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) and the cold logic of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I come down unhesitatingly on the side of the hon. Gentleman. He made a first-class speech; indeed, he has saved me from saying a great deal.
I also agree with what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said about the Catholic grievances, and what an eye-opener they were to him. There was an honourable tradition in the House of Commons that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and that is why hon. Members were unaware of what had been swept under the carpet.
In the 1959–64 Parliament we had the most high-falutin' body, the all-party, all-religions, ecumenical affairs committee, of which, strangely enough, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—an Orangeman— and I—a Roman Catholic—were joint secretaries. None of this information reached us. If it had, my hon. and gallant Friend would have been the first to let me know that there were sources of grievance.
It should be recognised both in the North and in the South that successive British Governments have gone to colossal lengths once the problem was made plain to them. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) brought in the British Army—incidentally, at the request of the Catholic heir-archy—to protect Catholic lives and property, and the Army did much to see that the Catholics were looked after, although, I am afraid, this was sadly unrequited by subsequent events when the Catholic community started to shoot the British soldiers who had been brought there for their defence.
This Government had the great courage to suspend Stormont and start the search for a brand new formula to get away from the past. Both parties can legitimately claim credit for the White Paper which has been produced by my right hon. Friend and handsomely supported by the hon. Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
The White Paper represents to the Catholic community an enormous

opportunity to make a go of it. The Catholic community must co-operate with this deal, because it may well be the last opportunity they have. To cooperate with this deal means not only supporting Westminster in what will be an overwhelming vote in favour of the White Paper; it will involve stopping petty pinpricks like rent and rates strikes for people who do not mind drawing supplementary benefit. It will involve leadership from the clergy and others in ensuring that the Catholic community gets out of its perpetual sulk and participates in community affairs. I do not care whether people are Republican—that is a perfectly respectable thing to be—or Unionist. No one can hope to see a United Ireland without a united Ulster, and no one can see a united Ulster unless both communities make the White Paper work.
This border talk is no longer relevant to the problems that Northern Ireland faces. We must pray to God that we can ensure that the White Paper works, that the Catholics take their rightful place in community, and that suspicion of them by the Protestants is thereby diminished.
As a convert, I can never underestimate the extent to which some people genuinely feel that the IRA is the armed wing of the Catholic Church. Of course, it is not true, but much has happened to give credence to that view. The only way the Catholics can make the community work is by giving the lie to that view, particularly if they can get much stronger leadership from the hierarchy.
I take a sanguine view of the White Paper. In my view it is a courageous White Paper. It demands the support, particularly, of the Catholic community, for whom so much has been sacrificed.
I thought that a most helpful suggestion was made by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), when he referred to a council of the British Isles. I suspect that, even though we are on different sides of the divide, my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I would agree on one thing, namely, that at the end of the day, and in EEC conditions, he would like to see a United Ireland united with the United Kingdom in the EEC. That, I believe, is a formula which could bring us all together.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I preface what will need to be very brief remarks by associating myself with the tribute paid to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and, not least, to the Leader of the Opposition. I do so as I wish to make it clear that I am second to none in my admiration of what the Secretary of State is trying to do and how he is trying to do it. But it may well turn out, despite the generous speech to which we have just listened, that it will prove to be impossible. At the same time, sooner or later it seems to me that the kind of solution described in the White Paper had to be tried, and better it should be tried now than in another two or three years' time after more deaths, more violence and more destruction.
The one aspect of the White Paper that may be unique and the one success it already has is that it has enabled a group of politicians and people who have a justifiable and dreadful reputation for looking backwards to concentrate their minds upon looking forward at least a little in the context of the White Paper. It is quite possible that the proposals will not work. I personally am very doubtful whether they will. It is even more unlikely that they would deliver the goods many wish to see delivered.
I have never accepted the argument that all that was needed in Northern Ireland was to prevent violence. Violence has its causes, and had there been some earlier recognition of the justifiable demands of the civil rights movement I believe we would not be in the situation we are in today. One welcomes the fact that solutions are now forthcoming, but it is a great tragedy that they have come forward rather late in the day.
The House may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and I at an earlier stage sought the agreement of the House to the adoption of a Bill of Rights in relation to Northern Ireland. There is within this White Paper a similar proposal, though it goes by a different name, and that is welcome. But my doubts are that, even if there is a successful election to a more representative Assembly, the same people may tend to want to go on

in the same old way. Even when one talks of power sharing, undoubtedly the majority view will prevail. If that majority shows the same determination to have things all its own way as it has shown over the past 50 years, obviously the proposals are doomed to failure.
I rise in particular to enter one caveat about the White Paper generally. I wish it success, and I have said that I believe that these proposals had to come. But I for one, and there are others of us, find it extremely difficult to go into the Lobby in support of the Government's proposals. Although the White Paper has been correctly described as a package, and it is right to say that one does not endorse it in every detail, there are two cardinal objections which some of us hold to what it contains.
Paragraph 58 envisages the introduction of the Diplock proposals in separate legislation. Many of us have made our views known about detention without trial and the abandonment of proper judicial processes. It may be said that this will be the subject of separate legislation, but the second and insuperable objection is the far-too-absolute and seemingly permanent declaration in paragraph 32. It seems to say that, come what may, whatever the events, whatever the developments, whilst the majority of the people want Northern Ireland to stay within the United Kingdom, that shall be the position.
Thus far I would accept some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). While one wants to respect the majority wishes, there may well come a time when events have developed so seriously, where there is such hostility and concern throughout the United Kingdom as a whole, that it might be unreasonable to be held totally committed to Northern Ireland virtually for ever remaining part of the United Kingdom.
There could be a situation in which elected political representatives saw a better chance of solution with some form of independent Northern Ireland. I understand the dilemma of the Secretary of State, because if he had omitted any reference to this he would have been in difficulties. There is also the fact that the commitment is so total and absolute that I believe that in voting for the White Paper we are committing ourselves


to something we may subsequently regret. We may feel that in the light of developments it is a pledge that cannot be honoured.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Derek Coombs: When one looks back to the 1920s and realises that De Valera was once elected to the Northern Ireland Parliament for what is now part of the Down, South constituency one appreciates how close are the fortunes of both parts of that small island and how the divisions have developed and widened in succeeding years. Under PR in the 1921 General Election, Sinn Fein and the Nationalist Party won 12 seats, and roughly the same number in 1925. I wonder, if PR had continued, whether the divisions would have been as they are now or whether they would have healed.
Of course, the Unionist arguments against PR at that time were that it would lead to a multiplicity of parties, but it is precisely the consequence of one-party rule that has engendered such bitterness and strife. The fact that this has changed is to my mind the most important single contribution to peace and justice.
Nationalism will always rear its head where a substantial part of the population feels that it is not being treated fairly and lacks effective means of the democracy which is available in this country for changing that situation peacefully. Unity by consent is, of course, right but nationalism using force as its means, in the absence of consent, is fascism at its worst and utterly reprehensible.
Unlike some other hon. Members, I think the imprecision and vagueness of the White Paper is its strength for it lays down sufficient direction to encourage participation from all sides without the rigidity which would probably frighten off one group or another. This seems to me fair so long as the Government themselves know what they mean by power sharing, which I am sure they do.
I had intended to touch on many other points but we are short of time and many of them have been basically covered so I shall not detain the House by repeating some of the argument already made. Every hon. Member is entitled to argue the merits or demerits of the White Paper. I presume that no one would sit in this House if he did not accept the

will of this Parliament once a decision had been taken.
Indeed, I would go further and say that, once it has been decided, everyone has a clear responsibility to make it work. This is directed at those who talk about participating only in the elections and then say that they will make the Assembly itself unworkable. If they do that, it will be a denial of this Parliament's right to legislate in Northern Ireland, and if they deny that right why in heaven's name do they declare their loyalty to the Crown? I live in hope. I believe that moderation and good sense will prevail.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been a remarkable debate, an historic debate, a constitutional debate of great magnitude. It has matched the debates in the latter part of last century and early in this century on the Irish question. Yet, as we have seen from this debate, the problem is still with us in 1973.
It has come through from this debate, despite what has been said about support given to the military and so forth, that there is no military solution to this problem. I think Bloody Sunday and Bloody Friday made that very clear. It should also be made clear to those in Northern Ireland—and I name them—the Provisional IRA on the one side and the UVF on the other, who think that just a little push is necessary to resolve the matter in their own interests, that that little push will not resolve it politically in the way they want to see it resolved. It could push Ulster into anarchy.
It is with this attitude that the Opposition give their support to the White Paper, not uncritically—I have one or two critical things to say—but because we are facing a situation in Northern Ireland in which, despite the dangers, I have confidence that the challenge before us is hopeful. It perhaps cannot lead to a solution of the Irish question—I do not believe this White Paper presupposes that possibility—but it could give us political stability and some form of détente which could allow the normal political forces to operate within the war-torn six counties.
Sean O'Casey said, when referring to the Irish question many years ago in a famous play, that it is "chassis on chassis". I think we all agree that in


many respects chaos still remains, but what encourages me—

Mr. Powell: Translate.

Mr. Orme: That was the way in which it was pronounced in the play. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the play.

Mr. Powell: I did not recognise the Greek.

Mr. Orme: One of the encouraging things in this debate is that we have been able for two days rationally to discuss the proposals in the White Paper some of which, I hazard the guess, it would have been very difficult to discuss in this House only 12 months ago, let alone four years ago. We have seen agreement across the Chamber not least between the hon. Members from Northern Ireland, such as unanimous enthusiasm for elections, for instance, by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I would not say that one or the other has been seductive to one or the other, but they at least found similar arguments on the question of elections.
I want to deal with the contentious issues which have been raised in the debate. I deal first with the forthcoming elections. We welcome what the Secretary of State said about the Assembly elections, and we shall give all assistance possible to the passage of the necessary legislation within our parliamentary rules, allowing for the rights of hon. Members to express their views and to raise matters as they see fit. The Opposition will give as fair a passage as possible to that part of the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring forward first.
On local government elections, right hon. and hon. Members from all sides have had the point put to them very firmly that to hold local government elections at this stage will hamper the political parties and pre-empt certain questions. The view has been expressed that this is basically a political issue. I respect the problem with which the Secretary of State will be confronted about the effect of any postponement on electoral officers and local government officers. However, the Assembly elections are more impor-

tant than placating local government officers.
In this regard I am sorry that in a television interview tonight the Prime Minister appears to have contradicted what the Secretary of State said earlier today. In reply to a question about the Assembly elections and whether the local government elections should be held before it, the Prime Minister said, "I think that we should adhere to the day which has been already arranged". I hope that the Minister of State will clarify the position. In view of what the Secretary of State said earlier today it is highly unfair to this House for the Prime Minister to be so firm on this matter in a television programme this evening. If these sensitive elections are to be given a fair wind and if it is a choice between the local government officers and the possibility of further bloodshed, clearly the Assembly elections must have priority.
I deal now with the Sinn Fein and the Republican clubs. We have raised this matter because we want it to be clear to all people in Northern Ireland that there is no barrier. The effect on the minority community will be extremely important. I am disappointed to hear that in the course of his television interview this evening the Prime Minister appears to have pre-empted this issue as well by giving a categorical "No" when asked whether these bodies would be allowed to stand in the elections.
We urge the people of Northern Ireland to accept that this is not a trap for those organisations. We do that not because we support them. We do not. We do it because we believe that if there is proper representation right round the spectrum we shall be able to see clearly who represents whom in Northern Ireland and because we believe that those people who carry and use guns will be brought to the reality of the ballot box if they are allowed to stand for election in open contest.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: To make this Assembly the success that we all wish it to be, does the hon. Gentleman agree that an abstentionist candidate, if elected, should be replaced immediately by the candidate with the next highest number of votes?

Mr. Orme: We ought to wait and see how many abstentionist candidates are elected before starting to judge what to


do with them. Like everyone else, I can only guess what will happen. But I do not believe that abstentionist candidates will hold the balance in the Assembly. But again I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has pre-empted this matter in the course of a television programme this evening.
I move on to the problem of oaths. We all welcome what the Secretary of State said earlier today. I underline what some of my hon. Friends have said about the Flags and Emblems Act. Why cannot the tricolour or the Red Hand of Ulster be displayed if people want to display them? I am convinced that if we take away that restriction much of the clamour for display will disappear. We know that when a thing is banned it becomes a great joy or attraction. I saw that happen in the Bogside in 1969 when the cry was to bring out the tricolour and to march with it. Much of the heat of the situation will be removed if people can freely display the emblems and flags that they desire to display. I know that many people on this side of the Irish Sea do not understand the importance of this freedom in the Irish context. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter.
An issue which has dominated the debate is that of Ulster's representation. I think that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) went to the heart of the matter when he pointed out that increased representation would decrease the Irish dimension. He talked about two communities.
The right hon. Gentleman found himself very much in favour with the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster, who made a brilliant analytical speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman made such a speech this afternoon, but it was a speech of demolition. He put forward not one positive proposal in substitution of any section of the White Paper. He was a great deal more arrogant than one would expect. We expect his cold logic, but he appeared to tinge it with an element of arrogance which does not match the situation which we now face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster did a similar demolition job. Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend must be asked

what we put in its place if we destroy the White Paper before it is given a chance. Do we force people into a united Ireland? Do we impose a form of direct rule? Do we transfer people from parts of Northern Ireland into another community? These are questions that must be answered. The delicate issue of the balance of power that could arise in this House has been discussed. There is the further point that increased membership will only transfer the problem increasingly on to the Floor of this House.
We are creating a form of devolution and self-government far beyond anything that existed under Stormont. In consequence, increased representation will not resolve the problem. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke about Stormont, but there were double standards before 1969 when the Ruling of Mr. Speaker prevented us from even asking a Question about Ulster. Many Ulster hon. Members can remember that. Ulster Members at that time could take part in any debate however small and however big, from the boundaries of local authorities to foreign affairs. That was accepted. However, when we tried to raise issues relating to Ulster we were bitterly opposed. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) brought the other side of the story to the House that we began to have a more balanced picture.
The issue of the 12 Members is linked with the question of power sharing in the Assembly and the sort of Assembly it will be. Everyone wants elections yet we are told that some who want them do not want the Assembly to work. The hon. Member for Antrim, North gave us a brilliant discourse about how the two ends might come together to defeat the centre. He saw some form of alliance between my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and himself. Things may be a little different. We may find that once this Assembly is elected there will be groups of people who will want to achieve things for Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland people have just voted in the border poll. It was a large vote. The minority abstained in a positive sense. Now we are to have elections for the Assembly. I am not


sure that the people in Northern Ireland will allow anyone to sabotage the Assembly once they have been elected to it. I am convinced that they will say, "There are a lot of problems, economic and social, which are a disgrace in this part of the United Kingdom and have been a disgrace for 50 years". In these circumstances the Assembly can work. If these groups hold back, if they are destructive, they can make it unworkable. But when the problem comes back to this House the choice may not be a wide one for those who have made it unworkable. They will bear a heavy responsibility. The British people will not take kindly to this being sabotaged before it gets off the ground.
The 1949 Act was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford in a moderate and pertinent speech. It is linked with the question of the attitude of the British people. Throughout this emergency the British people have been extremely tolerant, indeed passive. They have allowed the politicians and the Army to get on with the problem Despite the casualties in the Army, which have affected many of us in our constituencies, the British people have stood back and said, "We will see whether there is some form of political solution".
Any further bombing episodes in London could bring about a change of attitude. I remember, as a young person in 1940, the effects of the terrorist attacks in Coventry and the resulting deaths. One of the first results of that was to turn the British trade union movement against the Irish cause which it had supported for many years. We were then involved in a major war. The same thing could happen again with disastrous results, not only for the North and the South of Ireland but for the rest of the United Kingdom. We cannot contract out. I do not believe that a vote on this issue is the solution. The Provisional IRA and genuine Republicans have also said that the people of all of Ireland should have a ballot. It is now recognised in Dublin, by both communities in the North, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, that the burning issue is not unification, however strongly and passionately feelings on that issue may be held. What is needed is some

form of political activity in the Six Counties.
I turn to the question of the Irish dimension. This is left pretty vague— and I think this is fair. This has to be discussed. The hon. Member for Antrim. North said that the first thing which an Irish Government would want to discuss was the border. I am sure that he and his friends, if elected to the Assembly, can deal with that matter at an All-Ireland Council. I am sure the hon. Member for Antrim, North is not frightened by politicians from south of the border. I am not saying that they would be frightened of him either.
The Council should have an open agenda and matters should be freely and frankly discussed. There are a lot of arguments to be faced on economic, social, cultural and religious matters. Much of the present problem is due to these matters having always been in closed, confined communities. This has to be broken down. I can see this Irish dimension—this Council of Ireland—playing an important part.
The Council could discuss the question of policing. I appreciate the difficulties about those areas where police are not very welcome. This applies not only to Roman Catholic areas but to Protestant areas as well. The White Paper implies, in paragraph 112(c), that this issue could be raised within the confines of the Council. Could not policing at least be ex-amined by that body?
I am pleased that the Special Powers Act is going. Some of my hon. Friends are concerned about internment without trial and I am not happy about it. I also want to see an end to the civil rights problem as soon as possible and to have some political stability and peace in Northern Ireland.
So far as economic, social and cultural issues are concerned, I do not accept the argument that there are two nations. There are people with different cultural and religious backgrounds in Northern Ireland, but this applies in this country and many others. There are countries with far bigger problems, such as the United States and the southern States of Africa.
In Northern Ireland there are people who want unity with this country and those who want the Irish dimension of


a united Ireland. But the economic undercurrent throughout the six counties is of bad housing, massive unemployment and job discrimination. The worst aspect of society in Northern Ireland is in job discrimination. People use the factor of which school they attended to protect their jobs. This has to be removed.
I am encouraged to see that things are breaking up in a political sense. The Catholic community is no longer a unified nationalist community, while the Protestant community is removing divisions and throwing up its own leaders. People will begin to look at things in an economic sense. When working-class Roman Catholic and Protestants get together, they will find that there is far more to unite them on social issues than to divide them on religious issues.
Not long ago I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who speaks with great emphasis and knowledge on this matter. He talked about the divisions and the ghettos that exist in Northern Ireland as if they were there in perpetuity. But they are not. There are some mixed communities in Northern Ireland. They are middle-class communities. We have to mix the working class communities. A start must be made on massive rehousing, and not on the type of dwellings put up in Ballymurphy and Andersonstown. We want a far higher standard than obtains there.
The idea that the two cultures keep the people divided is a myth which we have to break down. We want work to go to Northern Ireland. Cannot we give the new Assembly more power in this respect? Why do we not give it power to run public industries on its own on an economic basis and to bring work to the areas which need it, particularly labour-intensive industries? Why cannot that be done? I say that unashamedly as a Socialist. It would provide an answer in the long run to the problem of coming together on economic and social issues, allowing for the difficulties and the time it will take.
We must get a regrouping and get rid of tribal parties. Hon. Members on both sides of this House have experimented with that idea. I ask peopde with responsibility, such as the hon. Member for Antrim, North for instance, not to group people together into these tribal cabals 

but to lead the people. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has discussed these issues with me. He appreciates the social and economic issues on which he has supported the Labour Party. Leadership is his job in Northern Ireland, as it is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, to try to build up, along with the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Alliance Party and other parties, some economic links and growth.
Surely one of the most encouraging things in recent weeks has been the talk, however tentative, between the extremists, between prominent Catholic and Protestant politicians. That destroys the myth of two cultures, of separate entities which cannot be mixed. We do not want a division in society in which we have the statutory Catholic and the statutory Protestant, and one-third here and two-thirds there.
I remember, when as a youngster in Manchester, my parents saying that Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So were Roman Catholics. This sort of thing was said in Liverpool, Manchester, London and Glasgow, quite freely and openly. But what has happened since the war? With the redistribution of population a new feeling has grown. This sort of thing has altered the situation.
There is also another myth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West will agree, that "never the twain shall meet". I do not believe that there is any family, on either side, that does not have a black sheep in it in the form of a Roman Catholic or a Protestant in reverse.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I saw someone of the Sinn Fein get into serious trouble over that not long ago.
It is this sort of approach to the White Paper, this type of new society towards which we are looking, that encourages me. It does not give me enthusiasm. I am in a sombre mood about this situation. We cannot take it lightly. What we are embarking upon in the White Paper and the subsequent legislation, the elections, the experiment with the Assembly and all the problems of the Secretary of State, will be of immense gravity. We have to give the White Paper a fair wind. Big trees grow from small acorns.
Tonight we are talking about political decisions and how they can be arrived


at. We have been arguing for two days —not against one another, but about how the proposals will or will not work and about whether people will or will not apply them.
Everybody in Northern Ireland wants the elections to get started. They want to see the new Assembly set up and want once again to get the feel of politics, as I found on my visit during the border poll only a week or ten days ago. That is the hope for Ireland, and this is its chance. It is little more than that, but I hope that the White Paper and the subsequent legislation will have a fair wind. We can wish it no more than that. But a big responsibility rests on this House.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I feel sure that the whole House will want me to take up the closing words of the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Onme). We could ask no more than to adopt those words and we respect the manner in which the hon. Member expressed his views. I shall carry happily away with me the picture of a Protestant in reverse—a sort of ecclesiastical push-me-pull-me.
We felt that it would be most convenient during this two-day debate to divide the various subjects between the Ministers in the Department. Apart from the broad opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, many of the constitutional matters were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, at the end of yesterday's debate, my fellow Minister of State the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) dealt with the important economic matters.
At the outset of my remarks I wish to deal with two matters which come within my responsibility and which have featured frequently in the debate. I refer to the question of job discrimination which the hon. Member for Salford, West, quite rightly mentioned in his remarks. This important subject was dealt with my the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) yesterday. He, understandably, wanted the subject of a Bill of Rights linked with consideration of the Diplock Report. My

hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) also made an interesting and penetrating speech about this subject yesterday, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Detailed proposals are beginning to emerge in terms of the White Paper, and since I have been fairly closely associated with them it might be helpful to say a few words about this subject in opening. The measures now proposed for the private sector will complement those already taken to promote equal opportunity in the public sector of employment in Northern Ireland. Those measures are contained in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the White Paper.
Put shortly, every public authority or body in Northern Ireland is required to declare its commitment to equality of employment opportunity without regard to religious or political considerations and to adopt a code of fair employment procedure approved by the Community Relations Commission.
Allegations of job discrimination on religious or political grounds have not been confined to the public sector. Such discrimination is said also to be practised in private employment. While most of the allegations are directed at the majority community, some are also levelled at the minority. This affects all sections in Northern Ireland. It is true, as so often in matters of this kind, that the evidence is difficult to come by, but the volume of complaint over many years shows how widespread is the belief that discrimination exists and how strong is the sense of grievance which this belief nourishes.
We have been concerned to make progress in a sensitive and difficult area, bearing in mind the many factors involved, such as the existence of segregated housing and schools, the location of factories in one community or another, and the understandable reluctance of some people to cross community boundaries in times of extreme tension and the risk of intimidation in various forms. These are all matters which, in an economic context, my hon. Friend the Minister of State commented upon last night. All these and other factors bear on the problem, and in their own way may be just as potent as discriminatory practices.
Nevertheless, the problem must be tackled, as the White Paper says; social justice must not only be done but be seen to be done in future, for the sake of all who live and work in Northern Ireland.
In the public sector the Government can operate directly on an issue of this sort but in the private sector, with its multiplicity of trades and industries, its great variety of plants and establishments, the Government, frankly, can make effective progress only with the active support and co-operation of both employers and employees, and particularly of the representative bodies of both sides of industry, which must give the necessary lead.
That was why a representative joint Working Party was set up—hon. Members will find it set out in detail in paragraph 100 of the White Paper—to consider and report on the problem. I am the present Chairman of that Working Party and will take a moment or two to report on the progress made so far.
We decided at the outset, very much in line with the spirit of this debate, not to investigate allegations of past discrimination so much, but, instead, to concentrate on measures to counter such discrimination from any quarter in the future. But the Working Party has not merely set itself the task—however important that task may be—of devising effective anti-discrimination machinery; its essential aim is positive rather than negative, namely to promote full equality in all aspects of employment, particularly within the private sector.
Against that background, let me comment briefly on each of the three measures outlined in the paragraph to which I have already referred, which constitute a single package.
First, as in the public sector, there will be a declaration of principle and intent which will be signed jointly by the representative bodies of both sides of industry and to which individual companies and trade unions will also be asked to subscribe. If hon. Members are interested in the full text of the declaration recommended by my working party, they will find it in the answer to a Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) on 22nd March. I regard this declaration as a significant step in itself.

It is much more than a gesture. It is the essential foundation for the proposals which follow and a clear earnest of the intention of both sides of industry in Northern Ireland to tackle the problem of religious or political discrimination at root. I believe that a very short time ago such a declaration would not have been possible.
Secondly, as in the public sector, there will be a code of employment practice prepared by the appropriate Ministry in consultation with both sides of industry, then to be issued as a guide to those concerned with recruitment and employment in the private sector. Not of itself having the force of law, but its observance in practice will constitute prima facie evidence that the company concerned is implementing in good faith the principles of fairness and impartiality embodied in the declaration, just as failure to do so will constitute prima facie evidence to the contrary
Thirdly—and this is where the working party breaks new ground—a fair employment agency will be established. It will be given powers not only to investigate individual complaints of discrimination, which will be made unlawful, but also— and I say to the House that this is crucially important in Northern Ireland terms—to investigate patterns of employment in particular companies or industries or among categories of workers. In this respect the agency's powers will be more comprehensive than those possessed by many similar agencies elsewhere.
Where, as a result of its investigation, the agency is satisfied that a company's policies and practices are not such as to promote full equality of employment opportunity, the agency will seek to have these policies and practices amended voluntarily by the company. It will initially rely upon conciliation. But if these procedures fail to secure the desired result—in what I trust will be only a few cases—it will have recourse, as a last resort, to the courts, which will be empowered to order a range of civil remedies.
These three interdependent recommendations constitute, I suggest, a comprehensive set of proposals. Details are now being worked out. The committee is at work on its draft report. There must follow urgent and widespread consultations on its recommendations, and in the


light of those consultations the Government will present proposals to Parliament for legislation. In due course, therefore, the House will have the opportunity of considering them in detail. But the point I want to make is that the aim of full equality of employment opportunity which the working party has set itself rests on the concept of an open, free and just society in which no individual will be denied the opportunity of employment or of promotion because of extraneous considerations which have nothing to do with his personal capacities. That aim and that vision are fully compatible with determined steps through the programme of "affirmative action"—that is the phrase used by the working party.
In part, these steps will call for action by industry, and in part for action by the trade unions. It should not be overlooked that in taking part in these discussions the trade unions, too, have understood what responsibilities will rest later upon them. But they also imply action over a much wider area to redress the legacy of the past, so that true equality and true respect, among men of all faiths or of none, will take firm root and will flourish. Because these are practical proposals to fulfil some of the hopes rightly expressed throughout the debate, I thought it right to say a few words about them at the start of my speech.
I move now to another subject which has been mentioned many times in the debate. It started yesterday with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) taking, from a common church position, diametrically opposite views. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made reference to it today. I am referring to the question generally called "segregated education". It was also referred to yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton) although—if he will allow me to put it so—in rather less measured terms.
I do not for one moment underestimate the importance of creating in the young people of Northern Ireland a greater sense of community. But in that context it does sometimes seem to me that people over-estimate the contribution that education by itself can make. It is surely an over-simplification of a complex situa-

tion to suggest that if segregated education—I take the phrase in common use— were to be abolished forthwith, this in itself would produce the answer we are all searching for.
The cruel facts of the present situation in Northern Ireland are that people are segregating themselves, not less but more. Measured in terms of where they live, people are drawing apart. The result of this movement is that the denominational character of a school in a particular area will be determined not by the organisational structure of the schools system but rather by the church allegiance of the area in which it is situated.
In theory, segregated schooling could be abolished tomorrow, but a school in the Ardoyne would as surely be attended by Catholic children taught by Catholic teachers as would its counterpart in the Shankill be attended by Protestants taught by Protestant teachers. To talk in these circumstances of "bussing" children, as is sometimes suggested in educational circles, is simply to misunderstand the realities of the situation on the ground.
Furthermore, it must be said that in other parts of the United Kingdom we both recognise and support church involvement in education. This church involvement, far from being limited to the Roman Catholic Church, includes major contributions by other churches. If we on this side of the water recognise the rights of parents to have their children educated in a school run by a particular faith, we cannot easily deny the same right to parents in Northern Ireland.
But, that having been said and that point having been made, there are surely important ways in which the education service in Northern Ireland can contribute greatly to the spirit of community of which I have spoken. First—and this has so far not been mentioned—it can do so in the training of teachers. It is encouraging that, for example, in the new University of Coleraine, teachers of both denominations are at present being trained alongside one another and are subsequently getting jobs in their respective schools. I greatly hope to see this develop in terms of in-service training. I think of a recent visit I paid to the Queen's University where a group of primary school teachers were having a month's sabbatical together.
Thirdly, the greater part of our further and higher education is already interdenominational in Northern Ireland, and personally I have hopes that in certain areas of Northern Ireland it will be possible to move towards a greater share of course provision at sixth form level, which itself crosses denominational lines.
I must deal with a point put forcibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone who, as the House will recall, yesterday raised the question of nursery schools. There are at present 24 such nursery schools and 18 nursery classes in primary schools in Northern Ireland together catering for about 1,500 pupils. A recently introduced special capital programme in excess of £1 million will provide 50 additional such nursery schools. While for the same educational reasons as apply on this side of the water I should expect future provision to be concentrated largely on nursery classes rather than nursery schools. I share the view expressed in the debate that this considerable nursery school programme would be a useful way of crossing denominational lines. I hope that all who are involved will listen again to the arguments in this debate which have been expressed in this sense.
There is a development in education mentioned in the White Paper, and referred to at times in the debate, which is of far greater significance in the educational world than perhaps we have appreciated. Next Octover five Education and Library Boards—and the library part of that work in itself is important—will replace local education authorities in Northern Ireland, and for the first time representatives both of Roman Catholic land of Protestant schools will sit together as full members of the boards. The boards are as yet only partially constituted and will be completely so only when joined by representatives from district councils elected in May. I can tell the House, however, that immense trouble has been taken by the present Ministers in appointing the partially constituted boards so that they can be as representative and fairly balanced as possible.
This development may at first sight seem unimportant in the context of the White Paper as a whole, but as one coming to this work from the Department of Education for England and Wales, I noticed that one of the striking differ-

ences was the comparative lack of contact on organisational education matters between local authorities, on the one hand, and church authorities on the other. This gap, I hope, will increasingly be bridged so that in a working situation men and women of different faiths with a common concern for educating young people will work around the same table.
It is not only in education that the area board organisation comes into force. It also comes into effect in health as well, where we bring together, in October, health and personal social services in a way which is ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom. Incidentally, it shows, in answer to some of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland constituencies, that we do not necessarily automatically and slavishly follow what is done on the other side of the Irish Channel. The point I make is that both these developments —and there are others, but I take them from my own personal experience—show where reorganisation, and preparations for reorganisation, are very well advanced. The staff are moving into new positions and headquarters are being located and proceeded with. The fusing together of all the services moves ahead. The departmental reorganisations are in hand, and hon. Members will recall that there were at least as many criticisms in Northern Ireland as ever there were of Central Government.
When, therefore, my right hon. Friend points out to the House the problems of postponing the local government elections, he is not merely dealing with a situation which faces all hon. Members here of—if I may put it—straightforward local government elections. He has to face the suggested postponement of the entire Macrory reorganisation proposals, which depend for their support, on 1st October, on the infusion of local government representatives so that they may be effective. No right hon. Member is more entitled to have his anxieties listened to with respect, for no one is more receptive to other people's views than my right hon. Friend.
The problems which my right hon. Friend posed earlier in the debate, and which still have not been fully understood by the House, stem from the total reorganisation of the local government structure which, if it were postponed, would have the gravest consequences for


local administration in Northern Ireland. It would postpone the kind of development which I have outlined and which is in line with the community work to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition looked forward to in order to bring members of the different communities round the same table—something which I am anxious to see.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We always listen to the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers, and I agree that to postpone the elections would be difficult. Have the Government made up their mind on this issue? The hon. Gentleman is speaking as though he is considering the problems on behalf of his right hon. Friend. At six o'clock this evening the Prime Minister made a statement on television that he had made up his mind and that the elections would not be deferred.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to read my right hon. Friend's answer in the whole. I give him the absolute assurance that we shall take account of the views expressed in the debate, but I am as entitled as he is to put counter-arguments before the House, particularly as no decision has been announced on this matter. My right hon. Friend is considering all the points of view that have been expressed in the debate.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We do not want what has been a good debate to degenerate into a farce. We understood from the Secretary of State that he would consider everything that was said. At 6 o'clock this evening what was obviously a recorded programme was put out from Downing Street to Ulster announcing firm decisions on things which we understood the Secretary of State proposed to consider. Does the right hon. Gentleman still intend to consider them and overrule what the Prime Minister said, or has the Prime Minister pre-empted the debate?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I should like the debate to continue in the way that it has so far, and I say categorically that no decision has been made. I say that with authority. We shall take note of the points of view that have been expressed, but I am entitled to put to the House the essential difficulty which is far more ex-

treme than the simple one of local government reorganisation. This is not a narrow point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisley rose—

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech. I mean no discourtesy at all to my hon. Friend. I have given way twice in the last two minutes.
The proposals which have been put before the House in the White Paper should be looked at in totality. They rest upon no purpose more determined than the restoration of the rule of law at present upheld by the police and the Army. When I hear discussions in the House about the rule of law, I sometimes wonder whether we fully realise the professionalism that is needed by an army which has to fight a battle within the law.
If one has discussed these matters in what passes for a barrack room and has been out with men who can at any moment be shot in the street, one realises two things. First, we must make changes in the administration of the law to deal with intimidation, and secondly we must retain detention with trial. It is not detention without trial but detention with trial.—[HON MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes, indeed it is so, for all the reasons so strongly urged by Diplock.
The passage contained in the White Paper rests upon a declaration that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of her people wish it. It rests upon the major constitutional Bill which is foreshadowed within it, leading to an Assembly elected by a method calculated to give all law-abiding opinion a chance of expression.
It follows, we trust, that consultations with parties in the Assembly will lead to the devolution of powers within the terms of the White Paper, including the concept that the Executive can no longer be based on a single party if that party draws its support and its elected representation virtually entirely from one community, and including the consideration of procedures of the Assembly which might in certain circumstances include weighted voting on certain matters. It includes a system of functional committees associating a representational cross-section of


the Assembly with the work of the Department.
I have said before on the area board structure, and I say again on the central structure, that the importance of bringing people together in a working situation cannot be over-estimated. It is not government by committee. It is a functional committee structure. It rests upon a division. clearly defined as never before, between accepted, reserved and transferred powers. It rests upon a large measure of freedom to determine expenditure priorities such as has never before been seen in Northern Ireland. It rests upon the safeguards and promises of a

charter of human rights and the abolition of job discrimination in the private sector. It hopefully leads to institutional arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the North and the South.

No one of its authors would claim of the White Paper that it is perfect, but the proposals contained in it, taken together, are proposals that offer a constructive way forward whereby both communities can come together in peace.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 332.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Bell, Ronald
Maude, Angus
Wilkinson, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Mills, Stratlon (Belfast, N.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Cordle, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Powell, Rt. Hn J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Soref, Harold
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster and


Maginnis, John E.

Mr. James Molyneaux.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fox, Marcus


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Concannon, J. D.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford a Stone)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Coombs, Derek
Gibson-Watt, David


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cooper, A. E.
Gilbert, Dr. John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crltchley, Julian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Crouch, David
Goodhart, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dalyell, Tarn
Gorst, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Benyon, W
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Bitten, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Green, Alan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Grieve, Percy


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul
Griggiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Booth, Albert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury, St. Edmunds)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grylls, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gurden, Harold


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bray, Ronald
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton Michael (Salisbury)


Brewis, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hamilton, Willilam (Fife, W.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Hamling, William


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Driberg, Tom
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hardy Peter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Walter (WaKefield)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Bullus, Sir Eric
English, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Faulds, Andrew
Hayhoe Barney


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fell, Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Carlisle, Mark
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Heffer Eric S


Carmichael, Neil
Fidler, Michael
Hiley, Joseph


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Channon, Paul
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Holland, Philip


Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Holt, Miss Mary


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hordern, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hornby, Richard


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foster, Sir John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Norman
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)




Howell, David (Guildford)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendeison, John
Simeons, Charles


Hunt, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Millan, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


hemonger, T. L.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Spearing, Nigel


James, David
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Spence, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, lain


Jessel, Toby
Moate, Roger
Stallard, A. W.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Money, Ernie
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jopling, Michael
Montgomery. Fergus
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Judd, Frank
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Strang, Gavin


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sutclitfe, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Morrison, Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Kerr, Russell
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Kimball, Marcus
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Kinsey, J. R.
Orme, Stanley
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kirk, Peter
Osborn, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knox, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lamborn, Harry
Page, john (Harrow, W.)
Tilney, John


Lambton, Lord
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tinn, James


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Tope, Graham


Lane, David
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) 
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peart Rt. Hn. Fred
Trew, Peter


Latham, Arthur
Peel, Sir John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lawson, George
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
perry, Ernest G.
Urwin, T. W.


Le Merchant, Spencer
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Leonard, Dick
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Longden, Sir Gilbert
prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walters, Dennis


Luce, R. N.
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


MacArthur, Ian
Redmond, Robert
Watkins, David


McCrindle, R. A.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McManus, Frank
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Roper, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Madel, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfietd, E.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rost, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Marquand, David
Royle, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Marsden, F.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James



Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maudling, Rt. Hr. Reginald
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Mawby, Ray
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 5.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Batslord, Brian
Bossom, Sir Clive


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bowden, Andrew


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Braine, Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bitten, John
Brewis, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Blaker, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Astor, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Body, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Booth, Albert
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul




Buchan, Norman
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, H. j


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Christopher


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt Hn Robert


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamling, William
Mendelson, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carlisle Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Carmichael Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carr Rt. Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, Paul
Hattersley, Roy
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Sir Micheal
Money, Ernie


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chichester-Clark, R
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
More, Jasper


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E.B.(Norfolk, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)
Holland, Phillip
Morrison Charles


Concannon, J. D.
Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


coombs, Derek
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn.Micheal



Hornsby-smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Partricls
O'Halloran, Micheal


Cooper, A. E.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)



Cormack, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orme, Stanley


Costain, A. P.
Howell Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John


Crtichley, Julian
Hughes, Mark Durham)
Owen, Idris (stockport, N.)


Crouch, David
Hunt John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
Iremonger, T. L.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Parkinson, Cecil


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
James, David
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Wood(ord)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jessel, Toby
Peel, Sir John


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Judd, Frank
Pink, R. Bonne


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Douglas-Home. Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kellett-Bowman. Mrs. Elaine
priOr, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Russell
pym, RT. Hn. Francis


Driberg, Tom
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dunn, James A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reedi Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'lle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Lamborn, Harry



English, Michael
Lambton, lord
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Faulds, Andrew
Lane, David
Richard, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lawson, George
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fidler, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Fedrick
Roper, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ross, Rt, Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Leonard, Dic.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lioyd, Ian (P' tsm'th, Langstone)
Royle, Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Foster,Sir John
Loverridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fowler, Norman
Luce, R.n.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Micheal (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'flord &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Sherby, Micheal


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McCrindle, R. A.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stephey)


Gibson-Watt, David
Makenzie, Gregor
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N' c'tle-u-tyne)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mclaren, Martin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Silverman Julius


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley
Simeons, Charles


Glyn Dr. Alan
Macmlllan,Rt.Hn.Maurlce(Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Godber Rt Hn J B
McNalr-Wilson Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Goodhart Philip
McNalr-Wilson Patrick (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mlngtom


Goodhew, Victor
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin
Spence, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David
Sproat, lain


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Grieve, Percy
Marquand, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Strang, Gavin


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Stultaford, Dr. Tom


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



 




Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Vickers, Dams Joan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tebbit, Norman
Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walters, Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Tilney, John
Warren, Kenneth
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tinn, James
Watkins, David
Younger, Hn. George


Tope, Graham
Wells, John (Maldstone)



Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Trew, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Tugendhat, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wiggin, Jerry



Urwin, T. W.
Wilkinson, John





NOES


Molyneaux, James
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr, James Kilfedder and


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Rev. Ian Paisley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals (Command Paper No. 5259).

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
This Order in Council extends existing controls over the legal possession of firearms, and modifies the conditions under which registered firearms dealers may operate. The order was made under the urgent procedure provided for by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, because the Government considered that in the interests of public safety these new measures should come into force without delay.
Until recently, it has been possible to say that licensed firearms have not been used in security incidents, and are not a security threat. It is still true to say that the vast majority of shooting incidents in Northern Ireland involve illegal firearms, and I am glad to say that the security forces have had great success with arms searches. They have recovered 333 firearms since 1st January. But in certain incidents, licensed firearms have been used for illegal purposes and there have been raids on firearms dealers. It has therefore become necessary to ask Parliament for powers to give the police stricter control.
The general principles governing the grant of firearms certificates have not been altered—that is, the applicant must show good reason for acquiring the firearm, he must not be unfitted to hold it and he must be able to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety and peace.
The police are, however, being given greater powers to refuse a firearm certificate. Article 3(2) of this order gives the police discretion whether a certificate should be granted, even though the applicant has satisfied the requirements. This is a difference from the Act of 1969, under Section 23 of which it was incumbent on the police to grant a certificate once the requirements had been satisfied.
At present, firearm certificates for bullet-firing weapons are granted in two types of case only. The first is where the police consider that the person's life is in danger and that he needs a handgun for personal protection. The second is where a farmer shows that he cannot control vermin—[Interruption.]—such as crows and foxes by any means other than by the use of a ·22 rifle. It is not intended to place further controls on the grant of firearm certificates in respect of shotguns or air weapons, although of course, applicants wishing to acquire such weapons will have to satisfy the police that they have a good reason for acquiring them and can hold them without danger to the public.
A firearm permit authorises the holder to have a firearm in his house, and only in his house. Formerly the applicant had to show only that he could hold the weapon without danger to the public.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—

Mr. Mills: The hon. Member will have plenty of time to make his own speech. I can then give it all of my attention.
The order requires that the applicant for a permit must satisfy the same conditions as those prescribed for the grant of a certificate.
Under the Act of 1969, the police had power to vary conditions already imposed on firearm certificates, but they did not have power to impose conditions where the certificate had been granted or renewed without conditions. Article 3(3) gives them this power. Article 3(4) gives the police additional powers to revoke certificates and permits.
Under the Act of 1969, a certificate or permit could be revoked only if the holder was disqualified for a criminal offence or was in some way unfitted to hold a firearm. Certificates can now be revoked if the possession of a firearm by the holder is likely to endanger the public safety, or the peace, or if he no longer has good reason for holding a firearm. A certificate can also be revoked if he fails to produce his firearms for a test— I shall come back to the question of tests later—or if he fails to furnish a


photograph for attachment to his certificate or permit, as required by regulations.
It is not proposed that there shall be any general revocation of firearm certificates. However, should the police decide that a person cannot hold a weapon without danger to the public, for instance because there is a real danger that it may be stolen and used by terrorists, the certificate can now be revoked. The holder will, of course, have the same right of appeal as before.
I now come to the paragraphs relating to firearms dealers. Article 3(5) introduces a new condition, requiring that the police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business at the place where the applicant proposes to trade.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the 1920 Act, the Minister has no authority to take away a man's livelihood. Has he studied this matter to see whether the order is legal? In a High Court case which was fought right to the House of Lords, it was established that the Government had no right to take away any man's business under the 1920 Act.

Mr. Mills: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am certain that it is legal, or I would not be pronouncing on it tonight. The dealers are very happy and satisfied with what is being done.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Yes, but is it legal?

Mr. Mills: Surely.
I was saying that Article 3(5) introduces a new condition, requiring that the police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business at the place where the applicant proposes to trade. Article 3(7) applies this condition to the registration of new premises in the name of an existing dealer. There is provision in Article 3(6) for additional controls over the number and types of firearms and quantities and types of ammunition which a dealer may keep on his premises, and the Minister is also empowered to give directions to the police as to what conditions should be

imposed on dealers' certificates of registration.
A direction has already been issued which prohibits the holding of bullet-firing weapons by dealers, and dealers have handed over their stocks of these weapons to the police. Arrangements are being made for the dealers to be paid for the weapons handed over. The dealers have co-operated in every way with the police and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and I want to emphasise that there is no suggestion that firearms dealers are not entirely trustworthy. The directive was issued because, about a month ago, for the first time, a dealer's premises were raided and there have been three further raids since then. In the interests of public safety, it was essential to prevent any further robberies. The purchaser of a bullet-firing weapon in future will make his selection from a catalogue and not from stock.
Article 4 provides that ballistic or other tests may be carried out on certain firearms. In the first instance, all handguns will be tested. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that test firing has started and is under way at 15 test centres. The characteristics of the builets fired at these tests will be codified, and checks will be made against bullets found at the scenes of crimes. Every effort is being made to ensure that holders of handguns held—

Miss Bemadette Devlin: When ballistics tests are being made of handguns, will they include handguns held by the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Mills: No, I do not think they will. These tests will be confined to the certificates which are given to the general public.
Every effort is being made to ensure that holders of handguns held for personal protection will not be without their weapons for longer than a day.
Under the Act of 1969, the Minister has power to make regulations requiring applicants for a firearms certificate to furnish photographs. Article 5 of this order introduces a new provision regarding photographs—the Minister is given


power to make regulations requiring existing holders of certificates to furnish photographs. It is proposed to make regulations shortly requiring applicants for certificates in respect of bullet-firing weapons, and the holders of certificates on which such firearms are held, to furnish photographs which will then be attached to their certificates. This will help the security forces and the police when checking legally held weapons.
The additional powers provided in this order will ensure strict control over legally held guns, and I can therefore commend it to the House.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Opposition welcome the order as far as it goes. We are concerned, however, about the question of guns in Northern Ireland. The latest figures that we have of legally held weapons in Northern Ireland, on 3rd March 1973, show a total of 107,330 guns. That figure includes 73,000 shotguns, 11,000 air weapon, 13,000 ·22 rifles, 737 other rifles and 7,812 hand guns.
We have a breakdown of weapons by area. A considerable number of guns are held in the Belfast area. We have been told that most of the guns are held in rural areas by farmers, and so on. If that is so, why are there so many legally held guns in Belfast? Does the Minister have any idea of the proportion of these guns which are shotguns?

Captain L. P. S. Orr: It is 68 per cent.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is 68 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that? What shotguns are needed in the built-up area of Belfast?
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has raised this issue on a number of occasions. On 6th April 1971 he asked the Prime Minister to give urgent thought to
a ban on all privately held arms subject, as I suggested, to stringently licensed authority for people in remote rural areas; appropriate provision for farmers to possess appropriate weapons.
My right hon. Friend also said,
Outside that, the Government should come to the conclusion that the possession of private arms should be forbidden.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April 1971; Vol. 815, c. 280.]
 

The Minister is tightening up on this matter. Photographs of guns are to be taken and ballistic tests will be made. Nevertheless, there are far too many guns in Northern Ireland, licensed or otherwise.
That point was re-emphasised and endorsed by the Labour Party conference. We have been told consistently that the murders and killings which have occurred in Northern Ireland have not been done by authorised gun holders. But I have here a letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) by the Very Rev. P. Canon Murphy. He states in the letter,
The News Letter of Wednesday, February 14th clearly indicated that an unreasonable supply of arms was held by the accused on licence and that one of these was used in the murder of the policeman of which he has been found guilty. The second, the Belfast Telegraph, of Thursday 15th February, details the accused's own story of the events from which it emerges clearly that his superior officer of the U.D.A. of which he is a member arrived at his home and told him to report to a meeting point and to bring his gun. On proceeding to the meeting point he was given ammunition for the gun. The gun referred to was, as already stated, the one employed in the killing. It also emerges clearly from the statement of the accused under examination that under the aegis of the U.D.A. he had been given instructions in the use of arms.
The points of concern to us all that emerge from the foregoing evidence are:

1. That the Security Forces were aware from the 21st October 1972 that legally held guns had been employed in the killing of one of their members.
2. That on the same occasion it came to the notice of the Security Forces that the U.D.A. were using guns and giving instruction in the use of arms."


I have here photostat copies of the news letter and the Belfast Telegraph report detailing this point. The reason I raise it is that it gives explicit evidence as to the use of legally held weapons. While this order will tighten up the position, it is still not satisfactory. We believe that there are still too many licensed guns in Northern Ireland, and they can be used in circumstances which are not in the interests of the community as a whole. One notices that in communities such as those of the United States, where there is a large issue of arms, it is very easy to get guns and licences. The number increases and never decreases.
The Government, particularly in the new legislation we are to have following adoption of the White Paper, should take


steps to withdraw—not merely to review and examine—licences which may not be used for legitimate purposes in present circumstances.
We will not divide the House against this order, which goes a few short steps in the direction we want to see taken, but it should go still further.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I shall not develop the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I share his doubt about the legality of depriving the firearms dealer of his livelihood. I was not satisfied with the reply, given as it were off the cuff, by the Under-Secretary of State.
Much emotion arises out of the licensing of guns. I believe that most people in Northern Ireland accept that the terror faced by the ordinary Ulster man and woman is that from those who possess unlicensed guns. It is easy for my hon. Friend to say, as I believe he said, that 333 unlicensed firearms have been recovered since 1st January. No doubt the statistics are admirable. Yesterday I heard the Prime Minister, when opening the debate, giving statistics about the number of IRA members who have been apprehended, but that is no comfort to the ordinary person, particularly old people huddled in fear at the prospect of death at the hands of other Republican terrorists.
On the number of unlicensed guns in Northern Ireland, I do not differ much from the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). There are just over 7,000 revolvers and pistols. I did not take a note of the figure he mentioned, but I believe the total was 7,345 in February this year, the latest figure I have seen. That ought to be borne in mind when stating the sum total of all licensed firearms in Ulster. There are a great number of air rifles which have to be licensed in Northern Ireland whereas there is no legal requirement for them to be licensed in England. They number almost 12,000. It is easy to evoke emotion about the number of firearms, but common sense should require people to look at the totals.

Mr. Frank McManus: I am sure that the hon. Mem-

ber does not want to appear unreasonable and one-sided. He said that the Prime Minister gave figures about guns and ammunition held by Republican terrorists, as the hon. Member described them. Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister said that the greater proportion was found in Protestant areas?

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Member is making a fair point. He is right to have drawn it to my attention. I would not wish to, nor could I, mislead the House with the hon. Member here. It is true that some guns have been found but I do not recollect the figures. But we are dealing with unlicensed guns and I am all for the authorities searching out and capturing unlicensed guns because they are the ones which pose a threat to the people of Northern Ireland.
May I add for the benefit of the hon. Member that the RUC and the Army walk around the Protestant areas of Belfast. They cannot engage in the same easy searches in Republican areas. The RUC cannot go into the Republican areas anyway unless the members of the force are well protected by the Army. If the Army and the police could walk around as freely in Republican areas as they do in Protestant areas they might find considerable caches of unlicensed arms.

Mr. McNamara: In his willingness not to mislead the House, will the hon. Member recall that area in which the UDR lost its rifles on the eve of the border poll? Was it Berlin Street?

Mr. Kilfedder: Once again a red herring is drawn in, because there is no evidence that the UDR was guilty of negligence in that instance and we do not know who was responsible for capturing those rifles. [Interruption.] I do not think—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to the terms of the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. McNamara: Just to get the record straight, I did not say who took the rifles, I merely said that they had been taken at a certain place on the eve of the poll from the UDR without loss of life or even any sign of a struggle.

Mr. Kilfedder: Of course those rifles are now illegally held arms. Anyone caught with them is liable to be prosecuted by the police and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) can rest content in his bed, worried only about his Icelandic problems. If he sends a gunboat to Iceland perhaps he might want some of those unlicensed arms for the seamen.
I am, however, conscious of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to abide faithfully by it. The hon. Member for Salford, West asked the Minister what was the breakdown of the shotgun figures for different areas in Northern Ireland. He cannot understand the large number of licensed shotguns in Northern Ireland. He wanted to know whether there were any shotguns in Belfast. I would not be a bit surprised if, when the Minister replies, he confirms that there are shotguns in Belfast. Northern Ireland is a very small community. The country is never far away for city dwellers. People go out to shoot vermin and to enjoy themselves. It is, I believe, a condition of holding a licence for a shotgun that the police must be satisfied in advance that a landowner has given permission for a potential licence-holder in Belfast, for example, to shoot on his land. Licences are not granted to people in Belfast who want to shoot rabbits in their back gardens.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Some people do not have gardens.

Mr. Kilfedder: That is true.
The hon. Member for Salford, West ought to remember that at weekends and on summer evenings many people go into the country and do a great service to farmers by keeping down vermin.

Mr. McManus: You are talking about people using shotguns in the country. What sort of vermin are you talking about?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. MaUalieu): The hon. Member must not call upon me to do these things.

Mr. Kilfedder: I heard the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), at some stage, say something about Catholics when the Under-Secretary was referring to

vermin. I did not intend to take it up because I thought it was in the worst possible taste. The hon. Gentleman can laugh, but to my mind that is not a pleasant thing to state in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has his own armoury. He is a Roman Catholic and he has his guns. He should not talk about Protestants shooting Catholics. Let us be fair—[interruption.]—I never expect fairness from the hon. Gentleman. If he has the courage to do so, let him stand up and put his questions rather than grunt away like a pig in a parlour. [Interruption.]

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to continue to heckle another hon. Member without asking him to give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I raise that as a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point of order has been made and met by the Chair.

Mr. Kilfedder: I think it is worth remembering that these guns are vital for crop and animal protection. They are also used by farmers for their personal protection in rural and border areas. There are few instances of guns being used illegally.
In view of the mutterings of the hon. Member for Belfast, West it is worth pointing out that the breakdown of the number of licences shows no religious bias. There is no reason to support that, pro rata, Protestants have more guns than Roman Catholics, but perhaps the Minister can give us the figures. The vast majority of guns are held by farmers and sportsmen, and I hope the House will accept that the availability of firearms, and in particular shotguns, to the Catholic community for lawful purposes is no less than to the Protestant community.
Roman Catholic farmers in my constituency have shotguns. They have their farms to look after, and they use their guns to shoot vermin. What is said by some people about this issue is nothing but an attempt to draw a screen or cloud across the danger to Northern Ireland from sources other than licensed guns.
I conclude by referring to pistols and revolvers, to which I referred earlier. In February of this year the total was 7,345. I remember that 7,345 was the figure stated fox February last. I may be wrong about that figure—

Mr. Orme: It is 7,812.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman who replies will give the correct figure.

These licences are issued for guns for personal protection by members of the reserve security forces and for people in public life, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West. Perhaps he might like to tell the House of all the guns he possesses—licensed guns. Licences are issued for others in danger of personal attack. A considerable number of the total of pistols and revolvers are antique ones and it is worth bearing in mind that many of these have been made incapable or are incapable of being used.

We should remember in this debate that three magistrates have been attacked in Northern Ireland and that one was fatally injured. He was Mr. William Staunton, a stipendiary magistrate in Belfast, shot in front of his daughter as he was taking her to school. These guns are necessary for persons in public life such as magistrates and they should not be denied that protection. I have still not recovered from the ferocity of the attack on the unfortunate magistrate, Mr. Staunton, who had merely been doing his duty for all citizens in the community, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. There are others. Perhaps we have forgotten Senator Barnhill who was murdered in his own home. This elderly man was murdered.

There were attacks also on Mr. John Taylor, a junior Minister in the Stormont Government, and Senator Mrs. Taggart. An attack was made on the wife of the Lord Mayor of Belfast and on others, and they should not be denied protection. We should not forget the former Speaker, now retired, of Stormont, Major Ivan Neill, who was also attacked in his own home. The evidence shows that protection is needed.

I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about one thing he said in opening. He said that there had been four raids on fire-

arms dealers. One took place in my constituency at Newtonards. It is essential to prevent any further raids and to prevent guns falling into unlawful hands, whether Republican or any other. As a precaution against this the Minister said that bullet-firing weapons would in future be selected from catalogues and not held in stock.

I have talked to firearms dealers about this problem, which I think is a grave one. I suggest—and I hope this is not too late, although we cannot amend the order, but perhaps the Minister will take it up—that a dealer might be able to keep on his premises one gun and one revolver of each type with the firing pin filed down so that it is useless to anyone. Potential purchasers would be able to test the weight of the gun and to examine it. If they decide to purchase a similar weapon they will go to the nearest police station or armoury to buy it, in the same way as they get the ammunition. I put that to the Minister for consideration. I agree that there is a need for ballistic tests—no one in my constituency would object to that. We know that they will prove our case that the licensed gun holders are not engaged in terrorism.

Although I agree with the order, I share the grave doubt voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and I think that the Minister should take legal advice before answering the debate.

11.1 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: Before coming to the three main points that I want to take up on the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I refer to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) which were prompted by a happening in my constituency involving the possession and discharge of a shotgun and the shooting of vermin.
A gentleman was found at 1.30 in the morning firing a shotgun. He was subsequently acquitted on the technicality that he was firing not from a public footpath but from within half an inch of his own gate. By sheer chance, the direction of his aim was towards a Catholic housing estate on the other side of the road. The victims were a number of residents in that Catholic housing estate, who were
 


not seriously injured because the weapon was a shotgun.
The gentleman was brought to court and acquitted on a technicality, but the evidence brought in his defence and seriously accepted by the court was that he was in legal possession of a shotgun for the purpose of keeping down vermin. It was claimed, in all seriousness, that what he was doing by pointing his shotgun in the direction of the housing estate was keeping down vermin. That might be referred to in the broad sense of keeping down something—

Mr. Kilfedder: We are both Irish. Perhaps I may draw an analogy with what happens in England during—what is the season?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a lengthy intervention. I allowed the hon. Lady to go rather wide. Will she relate her speech to the order that is being discussed?

Mr. Kilfedder: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was going off the point, but my remarks are relevant to what the hon. Lady is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may well be, but a good deal of what the hon. Lady was saying was wide of the order. I am trying to bring the House back to the order. It is late at night and it is better that we should get on with the contents of the order.

Miss Devlin: To return to the three major points I mentioned, what may in all seriousness be a statement from the Front Bench that shotguns are required to put down vermin may be questioned in the parochial areas of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Mills: Perhaps I can dear up this point at once. I am a farmer and I have had a lot of contact with farmers in Northern Ireland. They know what I mean. This is an extremely difficult pest to deal with, and one has to have a gun to deal with it. It is a problem common to all farmers in protecting their stock. It must be dealt with. Certainly I did not wish to give the impression, and I do not believe that I did, that I meant anything else. The farmers know what I mean.

Miss Devlin: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement.
I return to the question of legality. I claim no particular expertise in this respect, but I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in saying that it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary of State to dismiss the matter simply by stating that it is legal. One casts one's mind back to the fact that the British Army was operating illegally between August 1971 and March 1972. A very embarrassed Government had to put a very hasty Bill through the House to rectify that situation. In all fairness, it would be better for the Government to look into this question now instead of glibly dismissing it, only perhaps to discover, after legislation has been passed, and there may well have been something in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North, said.
The Under-Secretary of State said that ballistic tests would be made only of those weapons for which certificates have been issued to the civilian population. Here I do not particularly want to score political points against the British Army, I am not making a generalisation against it, and I do not want to go into matters already before the courts. I shall merely refer to certain cases.
There is at the moment a case before the Northern Ireland courts concerning members of the British Army who used a firearm against members of the civilian population. As I say, I have no knowledge whether the arms in that case were legally held or illegally held.
We have yet another case about which I do not wish to make further comment but merely refer to. It concerns another member of the British Army who recently, we were told—

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Lady, but as a lawyer I must ask whether it is fair to defendants who are facing charges if these statements are made in the House, since in Northern Ireland the people to whom they refer can be easily identifiable. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to damage the chances of anyone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is not getting out of order so far.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no intention of saying anything that might prejudice the interests


of defendants. I am merely referring to the fact that such cases exist and that such charges are being brought. These people are not readily identifiable, in any case; they are unknown British solders.
There was the recent case of a soldier who, in civilian clothes and off duty, returning from a dance, passed through the Bogside area of Derry and there discharged a weapon. He was subsequently arrested by the British Army and the police and is facing charges. Again I am not saying, because I do not know, what weapon he discharged, from what kind of handgun he fired shots. I am making no claim that anyone was injured —no one was. This may have been an isolated case [Interruption.] I am sure that if I am out of order the Chair will draw my attention to it. I am not making judgments on these cases. I am merely referring to their existence. While these cases exist, there is doubt.
I want to refer now to cases which are not yet before the courts and, therefore, are not sub judice. They are the death of Patrick McVeagh, killed on 15th April 1972, the death of Daniel Rooney and the shooting of the two Conway brothers in May 1972. Subsequent Army statements admitted to the involvement in some degree or other of British Army personnel, but to date no charges have been brought. I have asked Questions in the House—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) really must relate her remarks to the order and its contents.

Miss Devlin: With respect, this refers to the order and to the fact that the order will not make provision for ballistic tests on handguns held by individuals who are members of the Armed Forces, despite the large body of evidence to show that to some extent there has been misuse of weapons in the possession of such individuals in Northern Ireland.
If the civilan population who are legally holding and legally entitled to firearms are expected to co-operate with the forces of law and order to establish the extent to which legally held weapons might be misused or illegally used, it is not too

much to expect those very forces of law and order to exact from their own ranks the same discipline as they impose upon the civilian population.
I have asked Questions in the House about the case of Patrick McVeagh, the death of Daniel Rooney and the shooting of the two Conway brothers in Belfast, so they cannot be sub judice. The cases have not been put before the Director of Public Prosecutions and are still being investigated by the civilian authorities. But there remains sufficient doubt as to the possibility of weapons legally held being illegally used to make it necessary that they be subjected to the same tests as civilian-held weapons.
My third point concerns persons needing firearms certificates for their own protection. Is the hon. Member for Down, North aware that I myself, the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) are not, according to the Firearms Act, allowed to hold firearms, although it might be argued that all three of us could claim, like many other people in Northern Ireland, to require protection? We cannot hold firearms because we have criminal records. There are many people who, because of the situation there, have gone to prison to serve six-month sentences for crimes such as marching when they should not have done so. While this may be an offence for which a person can be sent to gaol in Northern Ireland, it cannot really be said to be the kind of offence which makes a person unsuitable to hold firearms. There are many people whose political involvement in a legal and respectable way has in the past resulted in their serving prison sentences of more than three months for criminal offences. As a result, they are not entitled to protect themselves by the possession of firearms.
I ask the Minister to look at these points seriously, especially with regard to the necessity for the Army to submit its own handguns for ballistic test and for cases of people in my own position to be reconsidered.

11.14 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Government's priorities are wrong. We are discussing an order which is applicable to legally held firearms, yet


in Northern Ireland there is a campaign being carried out by the Irish Republican Army and many people are suffering not from legally held weapons but from illegally held weapons. Recently an atrocious murder was committed in which a machine gun was used. Three sergeants of the British Army were brutally murdered. Yet tonight, after a lengthy debate on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, we find that the Government determine their priorities by choosing to deal with licensed guns. I thought that the Government would be dealing with more important business than that.
As this order is before the House it is only right that Northern Ireland representatives should express themselves upon it. I regret that the only thing the Minister can say is that he would not be here to present the order if it were not legal. That is no argument.
I have a good relationship with all the Ministers for Northern Ireland. I have always found them courteous and helpful in all matters relating to my constituency. I have found the Under-Secretary of State particularly helpful when dealing with agricultural matters. I represent a large agricultural constituency. However, the Ministers for Northern Ireland are not properly briefed. The amazing statement has been made by my hon. Friend that there are Protestant schools in Northern Ireland. There are no such things. There are State schools and Roman Catholic schools, but there are not Protestant schools as such connected to a Protestant denomination.

Mr. Peter Mills: May I put my hon. Friend's mind at rest. When, with permission, I come to reply I may have something helpful to say on that matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Good. I am glad that the usual channels between the Civil Service and Ministers for Northern Ireland are open and that the information is available. I have not seen the Attorney-General in the House since the main debate, but no doubt, like all members of the legal profession, his mind is active at 17 minutes past 11 o'clock and he is applying himself to the problem.
It would be interesting to know whether the order was raised and discussed with

the licensed gun dealers in Belfast. The Under-Secretary of State has said that they are all happy. If that is right, all the licensed gun dealers who made representations to me were not included. If my hon. Friend has been informed that all gun dealers are happy about this legislation, that is definitely not true. The dealers who have approached many hon. Members from Northern Ireland in this House are not happy that they cannot have at least one sample weapon to show would-be customers.
I have had strong representation from many of the dealers in Belfast about this matter. Is it not a fact that the number of gun dealers in business has been reduced already because of the troubles? Many dealers have gone out of business during the course of the troubles and have closed the part of their business which is concerned with guns, or closed down their licensed gun businesses altogether. Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me the figures. How many licensed gun dealers were in business in 1967, for example, and how many are there now?
The way that licences are revoked goes to the very hub of the order. The order provides that licences can be revoked if the chief superintendent is satisfied that the possession of a firearm by a holder is likely to endanger public safety or the peace. Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that that provision will not be used in a blanket manner and that each person who has a licensed firearm will be judged on his merits?

Mr. Peter Mills: Mr. Peter Mills indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I would not like any chief superintendent of police, or any other officer, to be able to say that over a vast district every gun will be automatically called in. That would be totally unfair and would be investing far too much authority in that officer.
I turn to ballistic testing. If a gun that has not been fired for two months is brought in for testing, can a ballistic test be carried out on it? How far back can a ballistic test go? What is the use of testing a gun if the test covers only the firing of the gun within a few weeks? If it was a realistic series of tests the guns would have to be brought in regularly, and I am sure this is not envisaged.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I think my hon. Friend is making a mistake. The gun is not tested to see whether it has been fired. It is tested so that the bullet fired from it can be indexed and used later, possibly for identifying another bullet which has been fired illegally.

Rev. Ian Paisey: The gun is also tested to see when it was fired. My hon. Friend may not know this, but those who have taken their guns in have been asked to say when they were fired. Then tests have been carried out to see whether the gun was fired on that date. This is happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member may try to read me a lesson on this. I am aware of the point he makes. Why are the police so anxious to know when the gun was last fired? These are the questions being asked of those who bring in their weapons. I am trying to establish how far back the tests go. It is an important point, and the Minister must be briefed on it.
Will the Minister state clearly, so that it may be put firmly on the record, how shotguns are issued in Northern Ireland? It seems that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not aware of the strict regulations covering the issue of shotguns in Northern Ireland. If a person lives in Belfast and wants to take part in sporting activities or if he wants a gun to shoot over someone's land, the first thing that must happen is that he must have a certificate from the farmer. The land must be of a certain acreage. If he cannot get that certificate he cannot even apply for a shotgun.

Mr. Orme: I believe that the hon. Member was a Member of Stormont in December, 1970. This question of shotguns was raised by Mr. John Hume. I have the quotations from the Stormont HANSARD. He raised the issue of the dispersal of the shotguns. We hear a lot of argument about where shotguns are, and it is said they are mainly in the country. The point that has been made is that there are unnecessary concentrations in the city areas.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes I feel that people imagine that shotguns are handed out willy-nilly in districts of the city of Belfast. Many who take part in sporting

activities have been refused a shotgun licence. One of the questions asked when a person applies for a licence is whether he is a member of a shooting confraternity. It is not right to say that shotguns are given out in Belfast without inquiry by the police.
In some places in Northern Ireland the only security a person has is a shotgun. Some weeks ago I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). I did not seek the hon. Gentleman's permission. After all, he comes to the Glens in my constituency without asking my permission. I was in a home where a young man—a member of the UDR— was gunned down in his own home, at his doorway. The mother had gone to the doorway and had found that her son had been shot. The only protection that home has is a shotgun. That home is not very many yards from the border.
The talk by those in the House who say that all shotguns and licensed arms should be called in gets under the skin of those in Northern Ireland whose only protection is a shotgun under licence. Those people have no intention of going out and shooting anyone. I utterly deplore and condemn anyone who takes out a shotgun and shoots at a Roman Catholic or a Protestant.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that it is illegal to discharge any firearm within a certain distance of a public road. Therefore, it would be an offence for anyone to discharge a shotgun, even on his own property, unless he were so many yards from the road. Contrary to what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said, it would not be possible for a person to get off on a technicality on that issue.
Law-abiding citizens on both sides of the religious and political fences in Northern Ireland are very concerned about the question of licensed guns. Some sections of the community receive no protection from any of the forces of law and order. There are roads which have never seen an Army vehicle and which are no-go areas for the police, as came out clearly in the debate over the last two days. Therefore, the only protection these people have is a licensed gun. They have no objection to tests being made or to the guns being subjected to proper scrutiny. The fear is that this is the


thin edge of the wedge and that they will be deprived of their only security.
I should like the Minister to state that it is not the Government's intention to call in all licensed arms and leave these people without any protection. A statement to that effect from the Minister tonight will be helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland and will allay the fears of those who fear sincerely that this is the beginning of the end of their protection.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not present, because I was not seeking to make any comments on the incident that we were discussing earlier. I wanted merely to point out that even in areas where, according to his statement, the police are able to go freely arms may still be stolen—stolen from people who should be well able to prevent their being stolen.
I have listened to the debate with amazement and wonder. A tremendous defence has been put up for privately held arms to be kept for sporting purposes. I was at a meeting in Hampstead some time ago when somebody said to me "There are Protestant guns killing our people." I said "There are no Protestant guns killing our people, because there is no such thing as a Protestant gun or a Catholic gun unless the guns have been baptised in some queer way in blood." It is guns and bullets that kill people. It is shots that maim and blind people. That is why we should call in all the guns. That is why I can only partially welcome what the Government are doing. They are only partially doing what the Opposition have asked them to do.
I concede that people living in remote areas and in difficult circumstances— —Republicans, Nationalists, Moderates, Protestants, Unionists, Loyalists, Catholics, Christian Scientists, Presbyterians— [Interruption.]—and Free Presbyterians need some sort of a weapon to protect themselves. I see no reason why the Government of a civilised State should not say to these people "We accept that because of the troubled nature of the State at the moment you need to be protected, and we will therefore give you a licence and issue you with a weapon.

It will be a weapon which belongs to the State, and which the State controls." It will not be a case of saying "If you can afford a handsome little sidearm you can buy it, but if you are a poor 'Prod' or a poor 'Tague' living in fear of your life and you cannot afford it, you cannot buy one."
I should be happy to see the Government, in certain specific situations, issue arms to people whom they felt needed them, but we seem to have had too many tears shed over the plight of the poor gun dealer and the poor sportsman. I admit that to take away a man's livelihood is a serious thing, but it is far more serious to take away a man's life or the use of one or more of his limbs.
Given the numbers involved, it would seem easy for the Government to give more generous compensation than they have been giving to people who nave handed in their guns or feel that they will have to go out of business because of these regulations. If we give such persons sufficient financial aid, it might not compensate them for the enjoyment they have been getting out of their sporting activities, or for the love they have of their trade or profession or their great expertise, but in material terms there can be adequate compensation. It seems strange to cry so much about these people.
I conclude by asking one rather serious question. Allegations have been made of guns being stolen. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any situation has arisen in which legally held guns have been stolen; in what circumstances the facts have been able to be checked; in what circumstances the guns so stolen have been used; and, more important, whether the people from whom the weapons have been stolen have had further weapons issued to them—and, if so, what conditions have been applied to them.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: We have had an interesting debate on this subject, but the case put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and, in opening, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) appeared completely to miss the point. The trouble in Northern Ireland which we have been experiencing for the past three years has been caused
 


by arms such as light rifles, Russian rockets—and we were pleased to hear about the interception, off the coast of Eire, of a ship full of guns and arms— Thompson sub-machine guns and other such weapons, none of which are subject to firearms certificates.
In Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the British Isles, many people—farmers, sportsmen and riflemen—use their guns to keep down vermin, for target practice, or for shooting clay pigeons. But there is no evidence that any of these arms are being used for illegal purposes. I welcome the fact that small arms are being called in and ballistically tested, so that those who have to keep them for personal defence cannot be accused of using them for some illegal purpose. But the bulk of the arms in Northern Ireland, the shotguns and 22 rifles, are not the weapons which are being used by the terrorists, whose actions have led to the heavy casualties to which reference has been made in the debates of the last two days.
The casualty list is 760 people killed since October 1968. Of these, 202 were killed in explosions, which leaves 558 killed by firearms. This figure can be further broken down into 235 members of the security forces—soldiers, police and reserve police—some of whom have been assassinated, like the three soldiers on leave or when clearly undefended, or shot by high-powered rifles and submachine guns—weapons which are not the subject of firearms certificates.
Every time a soldier is shot in Northern Ireland the Provisional IRA puts out a statement claiming responsibility—for 235 deaths in the past three years. Attacks have been made on the resident magistrate, Mr. Staunton, and on politicians like Senator Barnhill, Senator Mrs. Taggart, John Taylor, Ivan Neill, Senator McGladdary, Mrs. Christie, the wife of the Mayor of Belfast, William Craig and others. It is because of murderous attacks on people like these that ordinary civilians are obliged to get weapons for their own protection.
I deplore the fact that people in public life feel that they should keep a firearm. After all, often when an assassination is made, the victim is not able to use the weapon. But in a few instances people

have been attacked in cars and have not been killed with the first shot; they have been able to fire back and chase the terrorists off. So in some cases the firearm has had a good effect, and has prevented the person attacked from being killed.
In my constituency some months ago, two police inspectors, Inspectors Moore and McMaster, a namesake of mine, were attacked on their way from their barracks. If another policeman had not been following and fired a couple of shots at the assassins, those two men, instead of being seriously wounded, would have been killed. It is because of incidents like this that there has been concern about the use of firearms in Northern Ireland. But this order adequately covers the use of licensed firearms, those held under a certificate or a permit.
What we want to see is greater activity by the Army in searching out illegal arms, which are used day after day. Another soldier was shot dead today, I regret to inform the House. At the weekend, not only were the three soldiers shot dead and one seriously wounded, but a policeman was shot dead. In spite of the Government's effort's and the plebiscite, this terrible toll continues. We see reports in the papers every morning of such incidents in areas like the Falls and the Ardoyne. The Army should go on the offensive and search out the illegal arms which must be in those areas since they are continually used there.
That is the action I call for from my hon. Friend and the Army; not the type of restrictions suggested by some hon. Members of the Opposition, restrictions on people who hold firearms for personal protection or on farmers and others who keep air rifles and the like.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I shall try to reply to some of the points which have been raised. A whole mass of things have been asked of me. I shall have to rush through them. If I do not complete them, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
We have had an interesting debate. It has been a little heated at times. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). Although he has reservations, he has welcomed the order. I was pleased to hear that.
I take up the point raised particularly by the hon. Member for Salford, West and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that there are far too many guns in Northern Ireland and that the order does not go far enough. They said that there should be a widespread policy of calling in firearms certificates.
I should like to make the following important points. Article 3(4) gives the police authority very extensive powers to revoke certificates and permits. There will be no general revocation but the certificates and permits of persons who do not satisfy the conditions of that article may be revoked.
Concerning bullet-firing weapons— hand pistols and so on—it would be rather silly to call in these guns if the police had assessed that the holders needed them for self-protection—or for approved farming purposes. That is probably a better phrase than the one I used. This is an important point. It would be foolish to call in these guns when people's lives are in danger. Naturally we should like to have a position—we hope that it will soon come—when this will not be necessary. There is no evidence to justify the widespread calling in of shotguns and air weapons.
Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been targets for murder. Thirty-five have been killed, of whom all except five were off duty. It would be wrong to deny members of the regiment the means of protecting themselves.
The hon. Member for Salford, West was concerned specifically about the thorny question of shotguns in Belfast. I regret that I am unable to give him the breakdown of the figures. I hope, however, that it will please the House when I say that a new statistical unit is being set up and that within a short time it will be possible to supply that type of information quickly.
I am a farmer. I have a shotgun. I enjoy shooting and so on. Many people enjoy it. We have no evidence that shotguns are the real problem. It is the other types of illegally held weapon which are the problem. Probably not all hon. Members will agree with me, but even in Belfast many people enjoy shooting on surrounding farms, wildfowling and clay pigeon shooting. Belfast is very near most of the countryside. That is one

reason why there seems to be a fair number of shotguns in Belfast.
I turn to the question of the offences that were committed with legally held weapons and the particular cases. I must be very careful about this matter, particularly those cases which are before the courts. Seven firearms certificates have been revoked in the last six months because the holders have committed an offence using a legal firearm. Some of the offences were so minor that the offenders were not prosecuted. Only in one case was the crime committed because of the present political unrest. I shall not go into that case because it is sub judice. Of the other cases, only one person has been sentenced to imprisonment. The man concerned used his shotgun to resist arrest when police went to his home with a warrant in connection with a small debt. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Therefore, one cannot say that the legally held weapons and the offences are very serious. There have been only seven offences, only one of which was serious.
What we are doing about firearms dealers' businesses is quite legal. We are not taking away a man's livelihood; the dealer may still trade. The provision concerns only new licences and registrations. The number of raids on dealers' premises have been very few. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) about selling from a catalogue. I am not happy about the suggestion that dealers should be able to sell from stock. I will check up but I understand that they are reasonably happy about what we are doing. I do not think that in present circumstances it would be wise to leave even one gun in a shop.
There were 77,000 licences on issue on 3rd March and 1,994 permits, a total of just over 79,000. These certificates were for 73,679 shotguns, 11,792 air weapons, 13,310 ·22 rifles, 737 other rifles and 7,812 handguns, a final total of 107,330.
In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), I have checked the legal position and I believe I am correct except for a slight mistake. I said that the guns of the Army would not be tested, but the reserve security forces will be tested and that means the UDC and the RUC.

Miss Devlin: I am very glad to hear that. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Ulster Defence Regiment-again, I say this not out of any attempt to denigrate the regiment but merely because of the security position and the greater proportion of them have of necessity to carry a gun—will be included?

Mr. Mills: I will check on this, but I think I made the position clear.
The third point the hon. Lady made was whether we could consider those who had been in prison for three months. Section 19(5) of the 1969 Act gives the Minister power to remove the prohibition against holding arms from those who have been in prison.

Mr. McManus: I understand that if a group of soldiers go out while off duty, at least one of them is entitled to carry a handgun. If a civilian has a licensed gun and takes it with him when he goes out for the night, why should the law differentiate between him and the armed soldier? The soldier is just as likely as the civilian to discharge his gun, and he is probably more expert in the use of firearms. Why should not the soldier's gun be subject to a ballistic test?

Mr. Mills: I do not want to mislead the House. I shall check on this and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I am fairly sure that off-duty Army personnel wearing civilian clothes are not allowed to carry guns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the question of firearms dealers. There are 255 dealers. There used to be 500 in 1970. Of those 255, only 189 are authorised to deal in firearms. The others sell ammunition and so on. A person must be registered as a firearms dealer before he can trade in air weapon bullets or shotgun cartridges, and the police require a high standard of security at dealers' premises.
My hon. Friend is right in what he said about shotguns. They are subject to stringent rules and regulations. The

applicant will have to satisfy the police about the purpose for which a gun is intended and comply with security and other requirements.
The testing period will remain three years, but guns may be retested before that period expires if circumstances warrant it.
I have given the House the assurance that there will be no general revoking of licences. We shall look at the situation. The whole business of introducing photographs is an important step forward, because if we can save one life it is important to do so.
I have probably not dealt adequately with all the issues that have been raised. I seem to have been asked a tremendous number of questions. I shall read HANSARD with care, and if I have failed to answer any questions I shall write to the hon. Members who asked them. What we are proposing will go a long way towards making certain that certificates are warranted and are right. I believe that the order is a step forward and I commend it to the House. Our aim is to save lives, and that is important.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DOCKS AND HARBOURS (VALUATION)

Resolved,
That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) (Amendment) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.